theCardinal's Corner

LA Quick Hits: Correa's Cops, Evo in Iran, FTA for Peru, Mex Senate Finds a Cash Cow, APRA's Pick, To Godoy or Not To Godoy & More

2010-10-25T22:10:00.007-04:00

Correa nixes amnesty talk for cops.
Evo wants Iran to invest in Bolivia.
Peru and Thailand to sign FTA next month.
They are STILL counting votes in Lima mayoral contest.
Mexican Senate votes to raise cigarette taxes from 10 to 35 cents. If enforced I have no doubt that Mex will be running a surplus for years on end.
APRA ticket in Peru likely to be led by a woman, Mercedes Araoz, former Finance Minister and grad school grad of The U. APRA is President Alan Garcia's party.
PRD flips...Godoy stays.
China's Eximbank and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) sign letter of intent to boost trade in the region.
Mex Mayor and AMLO thorn Ebrard tries to get international cred in Spain.
Peru and Ecuador have bi-national cabinet meeting tomorrow.

Grenada's Goons Still Silent After All These Years

2010-10-25T20:42:00.003-04:00

Writing in the Guardian Gus John points out that the main characters who sank Grenada into chaos in '83, Bernard Coard and General Hudson Austin, are not only out of jail, but seem to be doing o.k. for themselves. He feels, justly, that they still have plenty to answer for:

Seventeen people — including Coard and General Austin — who were jailed for the Fort Rupert murders have recently been released from prison in Grenada. Coard now lives in Jamaica. Some of their fellow prisoners, including Austin, are employed by the Grenadian government.

But the released prisoners should not be embraced by Grenada's civil society without answering the many questions that still remain about the events which led to the Fort Rupert massacre: questions to which the island's long-suffering people need answers. Who gave the orders that live ammunition should be used against unarmed children and adults at Fort Rupert? Who ordered the execution of Maurice Bishop and the members of his government? Where were the bodies of those killed taken on 19 October 1983, and why were they not given to the public mortuary for relatives to identify, claim and bury? And for me, that to which I shall probably never find the answer is: who buried my father?
25 October is a public holiday in Grenada to mark the start of the "rescue mission" (as Reagan dubbed the invasion). Those who still mourn the victims of the massacre are calling for 19 October to be declared "Martyrs Day" and a public holiday, as a reminder that they have yet to bury their dead.

I should note that Mr. John's father passed due to a medical condition that could not be attended to; militia forces obligated his mother to return home when she sought help. Mr. John's was in a funeral home and taken by the army and buried at an undisclosed location during the American invasion.

LA Quick Hits: Cholera Kills in Haiti, Juarez (Again), Hugo and Santos, Bolivia - Not So Gassy, Peru Talks Security, PRD Drops Godoy & More

2010-10-23T07:51:00.007-04:00

Cholera outbreak in Haiti kills 150 thus far; not in Port-au-Prince but earthquake to blame. WaPost and LAT also follow story.
15 youths dead in Juarez.
Santos and Hugo to meet in Caracas on October 29.
Bolivia gas reserves a lot lower than previously believed.
Colombia, Brazil and Peru talk security (notice the source link and how they play down Chavez nuke plans).
Peru says FARC is hanging out there.
Peru talks narcos with Bolivia.
PRD dumps Godoy. Why did they accept him in the first place. Godoy has ties to organized crime and still sits in Chamber of Deputies. He is immune from prosecution while in office.
PAN's preemptive strike against AMLO fails - they should just ignore him. They are turning him into a martyr...again.
Colombia has more fauna under threat than any country in world, save Mex.
Susana Villaran still has a 14K vote lead in Lima mayoral race with over 88% of votes counted.

Not VAT Again

2010-10-23T07:04:00.004-04:00

Bruce Bartlett, an otherwise astute observer of the economic and financial scene weighs in on the VAT once more. Just as he did in his book The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, Bartlett stumps for the VAT as a solution to our growing fiscal instability. For someone who prides himself a realist on anything and everything related to our red-soaked balance sheet Bartlett is venturing into the realm of fantasy if he thinks the VAT stands a chance of ever being enacted.

Let's begin with the obvious, there is no way that any Republican would back a VAT as long as there is an income tax. Come to think of it I can't think of a politician alive that would go home to their district or state and explain who adding a new source of revenue for the federal government is good for them. So only way that you can get VAT is if you repeal the 16th Amendment. Let's go a bit further, our judicial branch is a bit more activist than in the late 19th century. Conservatives would not trust a strict repeal, they would want a repeal and replace with a prohibition on the implementation of a federal income tax. It is just too much and too academic.

The VAT would be an improvement over our current tax system, but the probability of it being put in place is highly unlikely. By the way, ignore the inflammatory title and read Bartlett's book. In his slim volume, in simple prose and a smattering of stats Bartlett lays out the challenges that we face. The slap at Reaganomics is the application of supply-side solutions to the current crisis. Bartlett actually defends (mostly) what the supply-siders were able to do in the '80's.

The Conservative Crack-Up: Viguerie v. Newt

2010-08-07T06:36:00.003-04:00

Obama is obviously dead in the water, the Senate is obviously going to go Republican, Angle is sure to best Reid...blah, blah, blah. As we await "Conservative Victory 2010" let us pause for a moment to reflect on just how insane conservatives have become. Richard Viguerie, father of direct mail fundraising, funding godfather of the "New Right" and conservative gadfly linked to a piece by the unknown one-time presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin. Chuck's problem is that Newt is a Tea Party Fraud. Among Newt's most egregious crimes? He is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations!

Chuck also points out something that has long been forgotten, or never quite understood, that many of Clinton's greatest accomplishments were shepherded by Newt. WTO, NAFTA, the Mexican bailout, welfare reform and a balanced budget. Best story on this is Derek Chollet's America Between Wars. I have not read it but Steven Gillon's The Pact actually focuses on the Gingrich/Clinton relationship and how they had planned to save Social Security and Medicare until Monica's blue dress became public knowledge.

Baba-Bull Watch: El Maleconazo

2010-08-06T06:41:00.004-04:00

Alberto at Babalu has a good post marking the 16th anniversary of the Maleconazo - a fleeting moment in which Cubans expressed their displeasure with the way things were. My only problem with the post is the conclusion where Alberto posits that the real story of the Maleconazo is how close Cubans came to freedom that day. Uhhhhh, not really. I think he exaggerates the promise and possibility of el Maleconazo. He can't be blamed for that since examples of street protests and demonstrations are so rare in Cuba. Regimes that have regimes that are usually dislodged by street protests are usually pseudo/quasi democracies and even some of them survive, see Iran. In addition to topple a regime it requires a sustained mass effort, something obviously lacking in el Maleconazo. The last outright totalitarian government to fall due to the strength of public demonstrations was Romania.

I also believe that the greater story is that el Maleconazo was the first mass public display of discontent on the island since the storming of the Peruvian embassy that gave rise to the Mariel Boatlift - over 14 years before. There also has not been a significant uprising since then, another 16 years. That is the big story - two mass signs of protests in 30 years. That is not a very inspiring record.

Calderon: Let's Talk Legalization

2010-08-06T06:03:00.003-04:00

I could not believe the headlines when I read them but in a bold and unexpected move Felipe Calderon said drug legalization should be put on the table for discussion. Previously Calderon had said that proceeding alone on this matter made no sense and that Mex would have to follow the US lead on the matter. As a justification this was a little weak. Ultimately Mexico needs to do what it is in her best interests and while upsetting US is something to be taken into the equation, the option need to be explored especially if the survival of the Mexican Republic was at stake.

Particularly refreshing is the fact that the principal opposition parties, nor even fellow PANistas, took Calderon's honesty as an opportunity to grandstand. Deputies from the PRI, PAN and PRD welcomed the President's call for discussion. Only the relatively insignificant left wing Convergencia took the opportunity to rip into Calderon's initiative calling to citing Mexico's lack of socio-political maturity and development. Not a completely outrageous concern, but not one that should be the end all and be all to this debate.

Legalization needs to be discussed. As I have stated repeatedly, it makes little to no sense for Mexican blood to be spilled for what essentially America's problem. If we were not such a ready and boom market for narcotics, Mexican drug cartels would not be in an all out war with each other and the state. There is a political cost to all this. Obviously any move by the Mexicans to regulate the drug market will draw a severe reaction by the US - that cost needs to be considered. In the end however, I do believe that a Mexican state that regulates narcotics can only hope to be less violent, less corrupt and more stable. There will be social and political costs but none quite as perilous as how the situation now stands. The options before Calderon right now are continuing an all out war with the cartels that he may or may not win or cede to said cartels the riches and control they have gained. It may be that his people find current options to be unpalatable.

START, Don't START

2010-08-06T05:42:00.002-04:00

Op-Ed in Washington Examiner by Heritage research fellow James Carafano rips into the recently signed START agreement. To back his position up he uses a game devised by his colleague Baker Spring that demonstrated what a horrible world it would be if we followed Obama's "nuke-free world" plan. I will try not to quibble too much although it must be noted that Ronald Reagan had a vision of a nuclear-free world when Obama was still striking up spliffs. As I a Republican and a conservative I can take Carafano, Spring and Mitt Romney at their word and believe that this START thing isn't any good orrrrrr....I can listen to Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley and Brent Scowcroft who have all voice support for START. Hmmmm...this one is tough. A bunch of no-name researchers who have accomplished nothing in the foreign policy realm, a politician desperate to show off his tea party bona-fides or a who's who of the Republican foreign policy establishment?

Being Racist Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry...Or Fact Checking

2010-08-05T22:34:00.003-04:00

The jumping off point for Steve Sailer's latest screed is a year old photo of Sammy Sosa in white face. Never been a fan of Sammy. Unlike Barry Bonds he was not much of a player till he started juicing and his mugging for the cameras and his desperate need for attention always annoyed me. He is a multi-tasking cheater, recall that he was caught with a corked bat. Coming to Sammy's defense is difficult for me, but defend I must. I do not know what was going through his skull when he popped up at a party ghostly pale, with color contacts and straightened hair but it should be noted that he gave up the look just as quickly as he adopted. It would be too much for Sailer to check that out, of course because it would not fit into his worldview. Sailer is a particular brand of racist, one who thrills at provoking without actually showing us his Stormfront tat. Sailer never actually shouts "White power!" from the rooftops nor does he proclaim that blacks or other minorities are inferior per se. Rather he just likes to needle and poke, noting that those darn minorities sure have some issues, don't they?

LA Quick Hits: Hugo & the Banks, Cubans Doubtful About Change, Peru Talking FTA as Exports Explode & I Wish My Girlfriend Was Colombian

2010-08-03T06:31:00.004-04:00

Since he has not done enough to frighten off investment and squelch any hope for private sector growth, Hugo is going after the banks now. He also gives a hat tip to Correa for coming up with the idea of not allowing banks to have ownership stake in media.
Cubans sceptical of Raul's promise for economic change, they have seen this all before.
Peru has started FTA talks with Central America.
Year-to-year, Peruvian exports shot up a shade over 40%, imports were up 38%.
Colombians only buy 2.2 shoes a year?

Next to Hugo, Sean Penn is Sane

2010-08-02T22:23:00.002-04:00

In "Hugo Boss" Christopher Hitchens recounts his time with Hugo and Sean Penn. Same title as a good Foreign Policy piece (subscription only) from a couple of years back. Anyway the best part for me is glimpse into the mind of Hugo:

It did not take long for this hero-obsession to disclose itself in bizarre forms. One evening, as we were jetting through the skies, Brinkley mildly asked whether Chávez's large purchases of Russian warships might not be interpreted by Washington as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The boss's response was impressively immediate. He did not know for sure, he said, but he very much hoped so. "The United States was born with an imperialist impulse. There has been a long confrontation between Monroe and Bolívar. … It is necessary that the Monroe Doctrine be broken." As his tirade against evil America mounted, Penn broke in to say that surely Chávez would be happy to see the arrest of Osama Bin Laden.
I was hugely impressed by the way that the boss scorned this overture. He essentially doubted the existence of al-Qaida, let alone reports of its attacks on the enemy to the north. "I don't know anything about Osama Bin Laden that doesn't come to me through the filter of the West and its propaganda." To this, Penn replied that surely Bin Laden had provided quite a number of his very own broadcasts and videos. I was again impressed by the way that Chávez rejected this proffered lucid-interval lifeline. All of this so-called evidence, too, was a mere product of imperialist television. After all, "there is film of the Americans landing on the moon," he scoffed. "Does that mean the moon shot really happened? In the film, the Yanqui flag is flying straight out. So, is there wind on the moon?" As Chávez beamed with triumph at this logic, an awkwardness descended on my comrades, and on the conversation.

LA Quick Hits: Calderon Still Talking Security, Hugo Isn't, But He Should, Hugo Skipping Mercosur, Chincilla Wants to Cash In & More

2010-08-02T19:54:00.005-04:00

Calderon acknowledges the need to open a new chapter in the battle to provide security for Mexico.
There is a security problem in Venezuela and the opposition promises to make it an issue. The only city in LatAm that has suffered more? Ciudad Juarez.
Momentum for Honduran recognition continues. Mex and Chile give a thumbs up to the Lobo government. Don't hold your breath for the Legion of Doom following suit.
Hugo is not going to make it to the next Mercosur summit in Argentina. Cites the tensions with Colombia.
Chinchilla met with Red Chinese FM Yang Jiechi. The Ticos are trying to cash in on their switch from ROC to PRC recognition - they asked for a donation to finish a four-lane expressway.
The Santiago exchange soared to a historical high of 4,418.66

Baba-Bull Watch: BonkoBert Makes Another Funny

2010-08-01T13:39:00.001-04:00

Apparently he just cracks himself up doing this.

Baba-Bull Watch: BonkoBert - Neo-Nazi

2010-08-01T09:21:00.007-04:00

In case you were wondering Bert is still Bonkers. Yesterday a Bert post managed to make a logical leap the likes of which our civilization has never seen. It was the most death-defying daring do this side of Evil Knievel's aborted attempt to traverse Snake River Canyon. BonkoBert (cuz BertBonkers or BonkersBert just doesn't work for me) managed to lump Angela Davis with Carlos Saladrigas. The connection, of course, is Saladrigas' opposition to the embargo as it currently stands. This is reasonable in Planet Bert because if you are opposed to the embargo then you are OBVIOUSLY a communist or an agent of Castro Inc. You see BB is like another Cuban who dons facial hair, he is insulted by the mere idea of dissent and is offended by any hint of debate. The only difference between them is that the other guy can actually kill whoever he wants and BB can only dream about it.

Since Bert started something, I figure that I might as well play it to its natural conclusion. I do not know how many degrees of separation there are between Saladrigas and Davis but I can assure you that Bert can be connected with some unsavory characters with the slightest of ease. On his homepage BB links to an article he penned for WorldNetDaily. WND is holding its "Taking America Back" Conference in Miami in mid-September. Ironically enough one of the main speakers is Constitution Party Candidate for Governor of Colorado, Tom "Miami is a third world country" Tancredo. Tancredo recently spoke at a rally for SB 1070 that other activists snubbed due to the organizer's link to a neo-nazis. So there...Bert is a white-supremacist, neo-nazi.

LA Quick Hits: UNA-USELESS, Hugo Moves Troops, Nacho Not So Libre &, Ships Sit

2010-07-31T05:46:00.003-04:00

UNASUR's attempt to mediate Venezuela/Colombia kerfluffle fizzles. Hugo then moves Venezuelan troops to the border.
Sinaloa Cartel drug lord "Nacho" Coronel was killed. He is an ally of Sinaloa kingpin, "Chapo" Guzman. NYT posits that people aren't going to feel safer.
30 ships have been waiting over two weeks to be offloaded at Port of Cabello in Venezuela. This as scandal grows over the way Ports allocate resources.

NutRoots Nation v. (Nutso) RightOnline

2010-07-30T22:51:00.005-04:00

So I was checking out the pictures of the RightOnline gathering which competed with the NutRoots Nation gathering this year. First there is the rather obvious - all the attendees appear to be...oh, how do I say this...well, they are all Caucasian. The presenters also seem to be melanin deficient with the notable exception of Herman "He Can Be President!" Cain. The truth is that the white thing doesn't really bother me that much, but the grey does. Seriously, look at all the doughy grey haired people at the RightOnline photos and compare with NutRoots. The lefties have twice as many people but not a grey hair in the house, unless you are looking at the speakers.

Lo Que Serra, Serra

2010-07-30T22:33:00.003-04:00

Council of the Americas has an update on the upcoming Brazilian elections. Jose Serra of the Social Democratic Party of Brazil (PDSB) once had a 20 point lead but Lula's girl Dilma Roussef of the Worker's Party (PT) leads in one poll and is only down by one in another. All this can be attributed to Lula's popularity. The PDSB, despite its name, is essentially a center party comparatively speaking. The third place candidate is the Green Party candidate and doesn't have a prayer.

Baba-Bull Watch: BonkoBert Keeps it Real

2010-07-30T21:46:00.005-04:00

Here is what annoys me about Humberto Fontova. He is actually quite smart, even knowledgeable but he is also completely and totally off of his rocker. Bert usually starts off with a statement of fact then slowly but ever so surely his posts will degenerate into some gnarled rant of some sort that essentially casts anyone who doesn't agree with him wholeheartedly to have been Che's triggerman at La Cabana. Bert reminds me of those characters on Chapelle Show who keep it real...they have a choice to make: be smart, think it through or keep it real. BonkoBert, in case you were wondering, always keeps it real.

His latest post is easily the most disjointed insane rant ever composed - you need a Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring to divine what the hell he is talking about. He somehow mashes together the commie Vencermos Brigade with Saladrigas, Joe Garcia and anyone who isn't an embargo fan. I almost want to see the embargo lifted so I can see Bert's head explode.

The Green Herring: Eco-Friendly Jobs Aren't Enough

2010-07-29T05:49:00.002-04:00

The left-leaning New America Foundation issued Talking Points that note the obvious - green jobs will not be enough to kick start the economy. Just a snippet:

It was unwise of the Obama administration and Congress to rely so heavily on the renewable energy sector to drive the recovery. Spending on renewables is slow to get out of the door, leaks to foreign companies, is an inadequate driver of jobs and growth, and may not create a strong exporting industry.

2 Angles on Angle

2010-07-29T05:39:00.002-04:00

FrumForum notes that even the Republican friendly Rasmussen polls have Angle trailing Reid. WE are talking about a sitting Senator with negatives in the 48% range. You can run the Easter Bunny and probably beat him. This potential unmitigated fiasco feeds into the greater narrative that the Tea Party fringe has overreached even before it comes to power. Right on cue comes Erick Erickson saying essentially that Angle has Reid right she wants him. Really? Is there any politician in the planet that wants to be down on the polling to an overwhelmingly unpopular Senator?

LA Quick Hits: Mex Drug Cartels Go South, Don Diego Lives!, Correa the Commie, Begging Bolivia & More

2010-07-27T21:30:00.008-04:00

Colombia is not backing down on its FARC accusations and tells Hugo where to stick his "Plan de Paz."
Great piece in WaPost on Mex Drug Cartel Violence going to Central America. Did you know that homicides per capita in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras far outstrip Mexico's?
Kidnappers of Don Diego release photo and letter. Depressing and awful.
Correa starts to set the stage to nationalize petrol companies.
Ortega talks up US Sec of Labor Solis, kind of nauseating actually. She is visiting the Nicas.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa is cautiously optimistic about the release of political prisoners in Cuba. Even then, he is too optimistic. The Church got a role in all of this because Ortega is a tool and can be manipulated not because it brings anything to the table.
US Charges d' Affaires in Bolivia whines and begs Evo to cooperate in fight against narcos. Seriously, why should he? So the US can help the way they help Mex? The way they helped sink Colombia to the brink of collapse? Why should they lift bring more killing, corruption and crime just to raise the price of cocaine by $1 a kilo? Evo should give him the middle finger and say - "We don't snort or smoke, you deal with it."
Maradona is out - the vote was unanimous.
Peru's State of the Union/4th of July is tomorrow - one legislator's plea..."Don't lie."

Raul Doesn't Speak, What Does it Mean?

2010-07-27T20:32:00.003-04:00

More regular than the swallows at San Juan Capistrano are the Castros on July 26. So yesterday rolls around and we are left Castro-less at the mic. The Babalu crowd was as muted as Raul but they should have been concerned. By not bothering to speak By going sotto voce Raul seems to be underlining their often made statement that the "Revolution" is about something more than the Castro Bros. True, he could have sent a stronger signal by having someone other than octogenarian-to-be keynote, but the point is made nonetheless. Very subtle but the message is clear.

Obama's Worst Nightmare? Really?

2010-07-23T19:58:00.002-04:00

World Net Daily breathlessly asks if Herman Cain is Obama's worst nightmare...say what? In case you were wondering Herman Cain is thinking about running for president and since he is black...well, of course, because the only reason Obama is president is because he is black. So conservatives of the fringe really believe that if they get their own black guy then Obama will be crushed! I don't even know what to say or make out of this case of ODS.

Peru Prez Race - Good News/Bad News

2010-07-22T05:39:00.003-04:00

Americas Quarterly Blog notes that Keiko Fujimori has a sliver of a lead, +2, over Lima mayor Luis Castaneda. Ollanta Humala has slipped to fourth...in case you were wondering that is the good news.

DeMint's Creative Poll Watching

2010-07-22T05:20:00.003-04:00

I just got a fundraising e-mail from Jim DeMint's Senate Conservative Fund touting the prospects of Ron Johnson against Russ Feingold. All well and good except DeMint proudly mentions that Johnson is in a statistical dead heat in a Rasmussen poll that has him up by one. While true that two of the three other polls also feature a dead heat, they also show Feingold is up by two. The third poll has Feingold up by five.

Astronomy + History + Rachel Weisz = Perfection

2010-07-18T20:22:00.005-04:00

I was about seven when I became obsessed with Astronomy. I couldn't get enough of it and I would troll through bookstores and libraries looking for anything that I could read on it. Unfortunately, I figured out at some point that if I ever wanted pursue anything in the study of the heavens that I would have actually use math for something more than figuring out how much tax to pay for a pack of Topps baseball cards. Still had a thing for astronomy. About the same time though, I had also developed a love of history. Now I find out that there is a movie that captures these two passions of mine and joins them with a third Rachel Weisz. So I there's a historical piece on astronomy that features Rachel Weisz naked that just came out. I may never need to go to the movies again.

LA Quick Hits: FCH - Security Important, Hugo is Scared, 2 Cool 4 School, Cristina Knocks US (Again), Samper Whines, Have a Coke and a Smile & More

2010-07-18T10:12:00.005-04:00

Understatement of the day: Calderon says security is a national priority.
Blake says Calderon has told him to focus on security.
Hugo declines Santos inauguration invite and threatens to break off relations. He said he feared for his life if he went to Colombia.
Four Colombian reporters detained in Venezuela won't be sent back till Monday.
It's so hot over here that I sweat just think about going outside, but in the southern cone they are freezing their butts off. Bolivia is closing the schools through Wednesday.
In Bolivia drug traffickers have made inroads in 27 impoverished communities.
Cristina backs Mex on Arizona law...imagine my surprise.
Former Prez Samper laments the decline of the Liberal Party and looks to the PRI for inspiration. Read the interview and see why the Libs in Colombia have no chance. Vague notions and embittered sniping is not going to get anyone elected.
It's been awhile but activists want justice for the Bolivian disappeared and those that suffered under the Meza regime.
Coca Colla takes the fizzy drink industry back to its roots, so to speak.

LA Quick Hits: FARC in Venezuela, Hugo Gets Pissed, Santos Invites Neighbors, Car Bomb in Mex, Killing Labor, Bolivar is Dead, Peru "Slows" & More

2010-07-17T06:32:00.003-04:00

FARC and ELN leaders are chilling out in Venezuela. Colombians have pictures and film to prove it - the evidence goes back to 2002 and...
Venezuela is SHOCKED by the allegations...Hugo pulls his ambassador from Colombia. That Ambassador must have some pretty awesome frequent flier miles.
You're invited! Santos invites Hugo and Correa to his inauguration...good luck with that.
First car bomb in Mexico's drug war goes off in Ciudad Juarez - four dead.
Mexican drug cartels have US made grenades.
Argentina oks same-sex unions - Cristina takes a swipe at the US, of course.
Hugo's unions take on the old unions and 75 union leaders have died. How come we only hear about Colombia?
Cuban Commie spy is sentenced for life . His wife gets off easy with only six and three quarter years.
Not a parody - Hugo exhumes Simon Bolivar, speaks to the remains and relates it all to a national audience. The crazy thing is that if he ran tomorrow, Hugo would probably still get re-elected.
Cardinal Ortega visited US in June - met someone, but Obama Admin is not confirming who.
Peruvian economy continues to sizzle, growing 9.2% in May
Happy Birthday Plan Colombia! $8 billion, 84% reduction in terrorist attacks, 88% reduction in kidnappings, 58% in coca production and 45% reduction in homicides.
Correa gears up for war against crime.
Ten candidates for Prez of Brazil, only Dilma and Serra matter.
Twelve Candidates for Mayor of Lima, right and center right candidates leading.

NYT: Economy Sucks. Blame the Rich!

2010-07-17T05:43:00.003-04:00

Not only don't we tax them enough but those darned rich folk aren't spending enough to get us out of the recession. NYT has an article saying the rich are not spending enough to get us out of recession. What is interesting is how this parallels other articles noting how businesses and banks are holding onto cash. The narrative in those pieces is that uncertainty over Obama policies and increased regulation are scaring away investment. The narrative in the NYT piece is....well I have no idea. They manage not to mention anything or anyone even remotely tied to the Obama Admin. I mean, they do not even ask anyone in the government why the rich are not spending money. It is almost as if they are afraid that readers would make some sort of association and blame Obama anyway so they won't mention him in hopes that we might not blame him somehow for all this.

One last thing the article quotes an expert from "left-leaning" Institute for Policy Studies. Left-leaning? Is NYT going to start referring to the KKK as a fraternal organization?

Dear Harry Reid, Be Careful What You Wish For...

2010-07-17T05:20:00.002-04:00

Stephen Moore has a predictably fawning piece on Sharron Angle in WSJ. Truth be told I would have preferred anyone but Angle to go toe to toe against Harry Reid but something in Moore's profile caught my attention. Moore notes that Reid backers are "gleeful", in Moore's words to be facing a "right-wing extremist." It is hubris like this that gets politicians in trouble. Jimmy Carter's people were thrilled that RR got the GOP nod and that didn't turn out so hot for them. Pretty sure that there

LA Round Up: Vicky Cashes In, AMLO Again, Alvaro-n-Hugo & Peru Explodes

2010-07-08T18:54:00.006-04:00

Vicky Pelaez is going to get PAID by the Ruskies. Like she wasn't getting paid before.
Because it wasn't fun enough the first time "El Mesias Tropical" is gearing up to do it again. Ebrard is playing nice for now, but no way he lets AMLO get the PRD nod without a fight.
Camacho Solis coordinator of the lefty Mexicans (PRD, PT and Convergencia) says they need to stick to one candidate in 2012 - good luck if the consensus isn't el Peje.
Year to year numbers for May show Peru exports to the Americas up 30%. All that and no Export Initiative? Amazing how that works.
Venezuela blames Uribe for keeping relations testy - I'm SHOCKED!

It's Easy Being Greene: The LiLo Edition

2010-07-08T18:36:00.002-04:00

How does a dirtbag like Jeff Greene even get to be considered to be a legitimate candidate for the US Senate? Seriously, how does this happen? How awful a candidate is Kendrick Meek that this can actually happen? Don't ask me how this happen but the future Senator from the state of Florida (JK!) was photographed last year hanging with everyone's favorite SCAM anklet donning mess and rumored milkaholic, Lindsay Lohan. Greene and Lilo were down in St. Barth's. Wait...St. Barth's...seriously only the cheese-eating beret wearing elitists at Salon would call it St. Barth's.

Oil: Why So High?

2008-03-15T21:36:00.002-04:00

For us market dummies Ronald Bailey explains what is going on with the price of oil and why it makes no sense. Depend is down, supply is up but prices insist on racing skywards. Bailey does admit a political factor and a falling dollar contribute but speculation is definitely contributing to the rise:

That brings us to speculation. Evans observes that since September 2003, the total number of open crude oil futures and options contracts rose by 364 percent. Meanwhile the global demand for petroleum rose by just 8.2 percent. "So the futures and options market has become more important than the physical supplies in driving the price," concludes Evans. "We are seeing investment flows into the oil market that don't have anything to do with the demand and supply of oil."
Investors are treating oil as a hedge against inflation and a falling dollar. Oil markets are part of a ~~negative~~ positive feedback loop in which higher oil prices contribute to higher inflation, which in turn lowers the value of the dollar, which boosts oil prices, and so forth. In other words, the oil market is coming to resemble the gold market (which has also been soaring). Evans notes that most gold traders don't even ask the question of how much gold was mined last year or how much spare gold mining capacity there is.

So where will prices end up? Bailey sees the bubble bursting at some point:

No one is predicting $10 per barrel oil. However, once the current bubble bursts, both Evans and Lynch believe that the price of crude will settle at around $60 to $70 per barrel in the next couple of years. "It's very hard to pinpoint just how long a bubble can expand before it breaks. Getting the timing right is not an easy matter," says Evans. But he adds, "I think that this is the riskiest time to be long in crude oil since 1980."

The Hugo Dems

2008-03-10T07:30:00.004-04:00

WSJ has an editorial on what it labels the "Chavez Democrats." WSJ correctly castigates the Dems for trying to slap down Colombia during its high stakes confrantation with Hugo. They also note that the "soft power" lovers of the left seem to have forgotten what soft power is about:

Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that "they don't have the votes for it, it's not going to come on the floor," adding that "what they [the White House] don't understand it's not the facts on the ground, it's the politics that's in the air."
Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don't want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue.

Unfortunately the ed. goes overboard bringing up the supposed fraud of the Hugo recall of 2004. Fraud or not he still had overwhelming support at the time. It was unlikely that he would have been defeated in that instance. WSJ singles out my personal favorites Delahunt and Dodd as being particularly close to Hugo:

These are the same Democrats who preach the virtues of "soft power" and diplomacy, while deriding Mr. Bush for being too quick to use military force. But trade is a classic form of soft power that would expand U.S. and Latin ties in a web of commercial interests. More than 8,000 U.S. companies currently export to Colombia, nearly 85% of which are small and medium-sized firms. Colombia is already the largest South American market for U.S. farm products, and the pact would open Colombia to new competition and entrepreneurship.
Which brings us back to Mr. Chávez and his many Democratic friends. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez's August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela's oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own Presidential qualities, they'd be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect "trade unionists." In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is
whether they're going to choose Colombia -- or Hugo Chávez.

NYT's Mac Attack Continues

2008-03-09T00:08:00.002-05:00

Since he took the GOP lead the NYT has discovered that John McCain may (or may not) have had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist, he is inconsistent and now that McCain's health is questionable. Wow! Pretty amazing how for a whole year they could figure this stuff out but in a span of a couple of weeks they are just on a roll!

Uribe, Chavez & Correa Hold Hands and Sing Kumbaya

2008-03-08T11:05:00.003-05:00

The mess is over...for now. More on this later when I can expand on it.

Bad News for the Next Prez

2008-03-08T11:00:00.003-05:00

Whatever you think about what is going on in Iraq I think that regardless of political leanings all would concur that Crocker/Petraeus combo has been our best by far. As fortune would have it, however, both Crocker and Petraeus will be gone by January of next year. Just in time for the next prez to find someone else to step into the mire.

What I always wondered was Amb. Crocker's relation to '80's neo-con bete noire Chester Crocker.

NYTimes Goes After McCain

2008-03-08T09:16:00.002-05:00

NYT is just flat out pathetic. After hyping and loving for years they are going all out after Mac. This comes as no great surprise but even for them the way they turned on a dime the moment he became the presumptive nominee of the GOP. Now what used to be celebrated, "the maverick," is frowned upon, "inconsistent."

Kaplan's Kolkata and Kaplan's Colombia

2008-03-08T08:57:00.004-05:00

Robert Kaplan has a new piece in the April issue of The Atlantic. I would love to post it but it's not up yet on their site. Kaplan is obviously still working on his new book, this article is about his visit to Kolkata (formerly Calcutta). Apparently the name was changed in 2001. I want to say more but today is our baby girl's baptism and my wife is going to beat me posterior if I don't start wrapping this up.

CSM pronounced The Atlantic's daily post The Current as one of its "Monitor Picks." This is what they said:

Struggling to find time to wade through a 5,000-word essay on global affairs? Go the easier route, and check out The Current, where Atlantic scribes offer their pithy takes on timely topics.

Kaplan was a recent contributer with his take on Colombia and Alvaro Uribe which I consider spot on:

Venezuelan megalomaniac Hugo Chavez's dispatch of troops to the Colombian border is meant not just as an affront to the Colombians but to Colombia's ally, the United States. Chavez must have deep sense of inferiority, because Colombian President Alvaro Uribe Velez is everything Chavez is not. Indeed, handicapped for size and importance of the country, Colombian President Uribe is the most impressive and successful ruler in the democratic world. A quiet, workaholic, he is the opposite of a demagogue. If Pakistan or Iraq had an Uribe, they would both be increasingly out-of-the-news success stories.

Anthony Lewis on Cuban Libraries

2008-03-08T07:50:00.005-05:00

First off a massive hat tip and maybe even a "We're not worthy bow" to Ziva at Babalu on Anthony Lewis's spirited defense of Cuban libraries and librarians in front of the commie loving American Library Association. I have to give props to both Lewis and Nat Hentoff, two prominent civil libertarians that I often don't agree with for their consistent support for the cause of Cuban freedom. You have to respect individuals that are consistent with their beliefs. Yes that is my way of admitting that I am not consistent with my beliefs. By the way the ALA may not have said anything about his criticizing them but .Lewis's speech is posted on their site To be honest, I have not listened yet so I assume it has not been cut out.

No Longer Obama's Problem From Hell

2008-03-08T07:29:00.004-05:00

Samantha Power, Obama shill and lightning rod for the "Israeli Lobby" is no longer associated with the campaign. Her fall not so much being the object of the so-called lobby's ire but rather a hiccup of unadulterated honesty - she called Hillary a "monster." Despite being a fan of her Pulitzer prize winning book, A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, I am not a fan of hers. She comes from the foreign policy school that seems to think that it is great to use the military for anything at all as long as it does not have anything whatsoever to do with our national interests. My only concern is that she has blown up too soon. There is ample time between now and January for her to resurface in an Obama administration.

Correa Knew About Reyes Being In Ecuador

2008-03-07T07:40:00.006-05:00

I know it may come as a shock but according to a report Correa knew of Raul Reyes being in Ecuador back in June 2007. Actually they even mentioned the precise location where he was offed last week. Boz is all over this. Boz mentions that Ecuador arrested five FARC "militants" and is hopeful that this is a sign of something. I am more inclined to believe these are tokens offered up for appearances and that each one of these individuals is inconsequential.

Dealing With Iran & There's No Escaping Chuck Hagel

2008-03-07T07:40:00.003-05:00

William Luers, Thomas Pickering and Jim Walsh have a piece in the New York Review of Books on how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Truthfully I had only heard of Pickering before, but then again I'm a dolt so what do I know? Some rather blah stuff in the piece - the usual "let's talk to Iran because it is the only thing that works" b.s. I'm saying it is not true, it's just not very new or interesting. It takes a bit but the three finally get down to their solution for the nuke impasse - multilateral program:

As a solution to the nuclear dispute, the US and its allies should propose turning Iran's national enrichment efforts into a multinational program. Under this approach, the Iranian government would agree to allow two or more additional governments (for example, France and Germany) to participate in the management and operation of those activities within Iran. In exchange, Iran would be able to jointly own and operate an enrichment facility without facing international sanctions. Resolving the nuclear issue would, in turn, make it possible for Iran to enjoy a variety of other benefits such as membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), increased trade with Europe, access to badly needed equipment for its aviation and energy industries, and perhaps normalized relations with the United States.

They then flesh it out a bit:

Such an arrangement could take many different forms, but any version of it would likely be subject to the following conditions:
Iran would be prohibited from producing either highly enriched uranium or reprocessed plutonium. This is the most important principle in the proposal. If Iran cannot produce or acquire highly enriched uranium, it cannot build a nuclear weapon. If Iran's enrichment program is turned into a multilateral project, it makes it extremely difficult for Iran to produce highly enriched uranium. Any attempt to do so, even secretly, would carry the risk of discovery by the international management team and the staff at the facility; the high probability of getting caught will likely deter Iran from trying to do so in the first place.
No work on nuclear fuel, including research and development, could be conducted in Iran outside the multilateral arrangement. In addition, no institution, personnel, or facility associated with the Iranian military would be allowed to participate in the production of nuclear fuel or other nuclear activities. Neither of the two kinds of materials used to make a weapon—highly enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium—would be produced, only uranium enriched to low levels that could be used in nuclear power plants.
Iran would fully implement the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires member nations to make their nuclear facilities subject to snap inspections, environmental sampling, and more comprehensive reporting requirements. Iran has already offered to go beyond the current safeguards of nuclear processes it adheres to, and it should be held to that offer. Inherent in any multilateral arrangement for Iran's nuclear program is a requirement for greater transparency, since Iran's foreign partners will need full access to records and personnel to carry out their management responsibilities.
Iran would commit itself to a program only of light water reactors (LWRs), which require uranium fuel enriched only to low levels and which, compared with other types of reactors, produce relatively small amounts of plutonium in the nuclear waste generated. This is a reasonable demand since the LWR is the de facto international standard.

They are not blind to potential pitfalls:

For all its potential benefits, an attempt to bring Iran's nuclear program under multilateral control also carries risks. It raises a large and complex set of financial, legal, and technical issues. How can a multilateral scheme be reconciled with existing UN sanctions resolutions and national sanctions laws? How would the multinational "owners" and their management team decide policy and resolve internal disagreements?
These are not trivial issues. Still, the main objection to the multilateral approach has
traditionally been that it increases the risk of proliferation. According to this argument, Iran's capacities to build nuclear weapons could improve under a multilateral arrangement because of (a) the transfer of technical knowledge to Iranian managers and workers; (b) the potential diversion of nuclear materials or technology from the multilateral facility to a clandestine, parallel program; and (c) the possibility that Iran could cancel the program by renationalizing it and expelling the multilateral partners.
On the first issue, it seems fair to assume that Iranian technicians would, in fact, obtain technical knowledge that they did not previously possess by working with their international colleagues. What they would learn, whether the acquired knowledge would prove decisive, or whether they would have learned it on their own anyway is unclear.
On the second issue, diversion of material or technology to a clandestine program, it
is worth remembering that even with routine safeguards, diversion is extremely difficult. In practice, the IAEA has been very good at accounting for nuclear material, and Iran would have to be willing to take a large risk of detection to engage in diversion. Given the enhanced transparency of a multilateral arrangement and the constant presence in Iran of foreign monitors that such a plan would require, the risk of detection would be even higher. Indeed, experience during the nuclear age strongly suggests that governments are less likely to attempt diversion or to defeat safeguards when there is an active verification effort within a country. (In general, proliferators prefer to wait until the inspectors have gone home.)
The third concern, cancellation of a multilateral program, is possible but would doubtless prove extremely costly to Iran. Iran could not jettison the program without risking a possible military response and other punishments from the US and its international partners.

So in other words Iran won't abrogate the agreement because the costs would be too high? Seriously, what would these costs be? A possible military response? There hasn't been one yet, what could prompt the Security Council to seek it? Any bets on Russia and China approving that? Punishment from the US and "its international partners?" I suppose they are talking about the EUnuchs. What more can they be willing to do that they haven't done?

Anyway Chuck Hagel thinks it's brilliant Don't get me wrong I like Chuck but he is becoming a total media whore.

Hugo the FARC Lover

2008-03-03T07:14:00.003-05:00

Hugo is making some noises and Correa is following his lead. Myles Frechette, a former ambassodor to Colombia, made the rounds in the papers. I don't want to read too much into it but it appears to me that the Frechette tailored his message to his audience. For the Herald Frechotte cited Hugo's motivation for his actions:

"You'll see a lot of [diplomatic] movement in the next few days,'' Frechette said, adding, "Chávez is playing to the cheap seats in Venezuela. His ratings are down. The economy is suffering, and the people know it. He's using this as a smoke screen. Note that Chávez has carefully not said he'll attack Colombia"

In the WaPost piece Frechette goes out of his way to say that Uribe is the one in dire straights:

"Uribe has got to go down there, meet with Correa, calm him down, and he's going to have Chávez fuming at the border," Frechette said. Uribe is "in a pickle, in the sense that diplomatically he's got to get himself out of this corner that he's got himself in."

Every piece even the one at NYTimes notes Chavez is gets along fine with the FARC. NYTimes article defined Chavez/FARC relations as warm and noted, just like WaPost, that Reyes and Hugo had met three times.

Surging Backlash

2008-03-02T21:44:00.002-05:00

Two pieces do not a trend make but they make some salient points that should be addressed. Especially when you consider that John McCain seems to have built his entire candidacy around it. Michael Kinsley point blank says that the surge is a failure. It all boils down to one simple question for Kinsley:

Has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? The answer is no.

Kinsley expands on his simple one word answer:

In fact, President Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." At the time, there were about 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Bush proposed to add up to 20,000 more troops. Although Bush never made any official promises about a timetable, the surge was generally described as lasting six to eight months.
By last summer, the surge had actually added closer to 30,000 troops, making the total American troop count about 160,000. Today, there are still more than 150,000 American troops in Iraq. The official plan has been to get that number back down to 130,000 by July and then to keep going so that there would be about 100,000 American troops in Iraq by the time Bush leaves office. Lately, though, Gen. Petraeus has come up with another zenlike idea: He calls it a "pause." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period.
So, the best that we can hope for, in terms of American troops risking their lives in Iraq, is that there will be just as many next July—and probably next January, when time runs out—as there were a year ago. The surge will have surged in and surged out, leaving us back where we started. Maybe the situation in Baghdad, or the whole country, will have improved. But apparently it won't have improved enough to risk an actual reduction in the American troop commitment.

Nir Rosen is even less impressed with the so called surge, placing the success on our efforts to bribe Sunni militants:

Having lost the civil war, many Sunnis were suddenly desperate to switch sides -- and Gen. David Petraeus was eager to oblige. The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq -- it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government. The Americans call the units by a variety of euphemisms: Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), neighborhood watch groups, Concerned Local Citizens, Critical Infrastructure Security. The militias prefer a simpler and more dramatic name: They call themselves Sahwa, or "the Awakening."
At least 80,000 men across Iraq are now employed by the Americans as ISVs. Nearly all are Sunnis, with the exception of a few thousand Shiites. Operating as a contractor, Osama runs 300 of these new militiamen, former resistance fighters whom the U.S. now counts as allies because they are cashing our checks. The Americans pay Osama once a month; he in turn provides his men with uniforms and pays them ten dollars a day to man checkpoints in the Dora district -- a paltry sum even by Iraqi standards. A former contractor for KBR, Osama is now running an armed network on behalf of the United States government. "We use our own guns," he tells me, expressing regret that his units have not been able to obtain the heavy-caliber machine guns brandished by other Sunni militias.

The American forces responsible for overseeing "volunteer" militias like Osama's have no illusions about their loyalty. "The only reason anything works or anybody deals with us is because we give them money," says a young Army intelligence officer. The 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, which patrols Osama's territory, is handing out $32 million to Iraqis in the district, including $6 million to build the towering walls that, in the words of one U.S. officer, serve only to "make Iraqis more divided than they already are." In districts like Dora, the strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight. All told, the U.S. is now backing more than 600,000 Iraqi men in the security sector -- more than half the number Saddam had at the height of his power. With the ISVs in place, the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war. "Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems," as U.S. strategists like to say. David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus, calls it "balancing competing armed interest groups."

Chavez Exposed

2008-03-02T21:08:00.002-05:00

Chavez takes a double barreled blast from Foreign Affairs and The Economist. The devastating take down in Foreign Affairs lays bare Hugo's "Empty Revolution." Francisco Rodriguez notes that much of what has been accepted by even Hugo's enemies, that he has generously invested resources on the impoverished, that he has improved health care and that he has attacked illiteracy is in fact all myth. Ironically The Economist is one of those cited as swallowing the Bolivarian lie. This week The Economist checks out the Rodriguez piece and sets the record straight on Hugo's failure on the literacy front:

The literacy scheme was one of a clutch of social “missions” organised by Mr Chávez in 2003, when he faced possible defeat in a recall referendum on his presidency. The government claims that by October 2005 it had all but eliminated illiteracy. That claim has become a centrepiece of the international propaganda effort on behalf of Mr Chávez's “revolution”. But there is no data to support it. Many educationalists doubt it. Even the government itself has retreated from its initial figure of “less than 1% illiteracy” to a figure of around 4%, though it is not clear whether this refers just to adults or to the total population.

It is notoriously difficult to obtain precise literacy figures from census data, which rely on self-assessment. But Francisco Rodríguez of Wesleyan University in Connecticut and Daniel Ortega of IESA, a Caracas business school, have used household surveys from the national statistical institute to assess the programme. In an article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Mr Rodríguez says that they found “little evidence” of any “statistically distinguishable effect on Venezuelan illiteracy”. Where the government says it taught 1.5m, the study found that only 1.1m were illiterate to begin with, and that the fall over the 2003-05 period was less than 100,000. Even this improvement could largely be explained by a long-term demographic trend (many illiterate adults are elderly and die off).

Adán Chávez, who is the education minister as well as the president's brother, has complained of statistical “manipulation” by the government's foes. But Mr Rodríguez, for one, is no reactionary; he was the chief economist of Venezuela's National Assembly in 2000-04, and was once a chavista sympathiser.

Last year the statistics institute launched its own study on the impact of the social missions. This was supposed to be ready by January. But delays in buying equipment mean it has yet to start, according to Irene Gurrea, the economist in charge. Asked if there were any reliable statistics on the impact of Misión Robinson, Ms Gurrea said: “As far as we know, no—that's why we're doing the study.”

Staff of an older literacy programme run by Fe y Alegría, a Catholic charity, say they continue to enroll students. In Machiques, near the Colombian border, 100 joined in the past semester. They say that up to 40% of the Warao Indians in the Orinoco delta are illiterate. In 2005 Mr Chávez told local officials to declare their towns officially “illiteracy free”. Knowing this to be untrue, the mayor of Machiques resisted, but gave in to pressure, according to Jesús Vilorio, who works for Fe y Alegría.

It is not hard to find individuals like Ms Silva who say their lives were changed by Misión Robinson. But the missions have gone hand-in-hand with neglect of schools and hospitals. Mr Rodríguez estimates that Robinson spent $1,000 for each of its literate graduates, compared with around $60 for other literacy schemes in Latin America. At the least, that money could have been better spent.

The Rodriguez case in Foreign Affairs does not stop with the withering attack on Hugo's literacy propaganda. First there is the failure of Hugo's antipoverty programs:

Soon after joining the National Assembly, I clashed with the administration over underfunding of the Consolidated Social Fund (known by its Spanish acronym FUS), which had been created by Chávez to coordinate the distribution of resources to antipoverty programs. The law establishing the fund included a special provision to ensure that it would benefit from rising oil revenues. But when oil revenues started to go up, the Finance Ministry ignored the provision, allocating to the fund in the 2001 budget only $295 million -- 15 percent less than the previous year and less than a third of the legally mandated $1.1 billion. When my office pointed out this inconsistency, the Finance Ministry came up with the creative accounting gimmick of rearranging the law so that programs not coordinated by the FUS would nevertheless appear to be receiving resources from it. The effect was to direct resources away from the poor even as oil profits were surging. (Hard-liners in the government, incensed by my office's criticisms, immediately called for my ouster. When the last moderates, who understood the need for an independent research team to evaluate policies, left the Chávez camp in 2004, the government finally disbanded our office.)

Rodriguez notes that income inequality has actually increased during Hugo's tenure:

One would expect such a consensus to be backed up by an impressive array of evidence. But in fact, there is remarkably little data supporting the claim that the Chávez administration has acted any differently from previous Venezuelan governments -- or, for that matter, from those of other developing and Latin American nations -- in redistributing the gains from economic growth to the poor. One oft-cited statistic is the decline in poverty from a peak of 54 percent at the height of the national strike in 2003 to 27.5 percent in the first half of 2007. Although this decline may appear impressive, it is also known that poverty reduction is strongly associated with economic growth and that Venezuela's per capita GDP grew by nearly 50 percent during the same time period -- thanks in great part to a tripling of oil prices. The real question is thus not whether poverty has fallen but whether the Chávez government has been particularly effective at converting this period of economic growth into poverty reduction. One way to evaluate this is by calculating the reduction in poverty for every percentage point increase in per capita income -- in economists' lingo, the income elasticity of poverty reduction. This calculation shows an average reduction of one percentage point in poverty for every percentage point in per capita GDP growth during this recovery, a ratio that compares unfavorably with those of many other developing countries, for which studies tend to put the figure at around two percentage points. Similarly, one would expect pro-poor growth to be accompanied by a marked decrease in income inequality. But according to the Venezuelan Central Bank, inequality has actually increased during the Chávez administration, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of economic inequality, with zero indicating perfect equality and one indicating perfect inequality) increasing from 0.44 to 0.48 between 2000 and 2005.

In fact by almost every measure things have managed to get worse for many Venezuelans:

...official statistics show no signs of a substantial improvement in the well-being of ordinary Venezuelans, and in many cases there have been worrying deteriorations. The percentage of underweight babies, for example, increased from 8.4 percent to 9.1 percent between 1999 and 2006. During the same period, the percentage of households without access to running water rose from 7.2 percent to 9.4 percent, and the percentage of families living in dwellings with earthen floors multiplied almost threefold, from 2.5 percent to 6.8 percent.

How about that largesse being diverted to the poor? Non-existent says Rodriguez, although he eschews raw numbers and goes by percentage of the budget:

Remarkably, given Chávez's rhetoric and reputation, official figures show no significant change in the priority given to social spending during his administration. The average share of the budget devoted to health, education, and housing under Chávez in his first eight years in office was 25.12 percent, essentially identical to the average share (25.08 percent) in the previous eight years. And it is lower today than it was in 1992, the last year in office of the "neoliberal" administration of Carlos Andrés Pérez -- the leader whom Chávez, then a lieutenant colonel in the Venezuelan army, tried to overthrow in a coup, purportedly on behalf of Venezuela's neglected poor majority.

Health stats are also quite bleek:

In a number of recent studies, I have worked with colleagues to look more systematically at the results of Chávez's health and education misiones. Our findings confirm that Chávez has in fact done little for the poor. For example, his government often claims that the influx of Cuban doctors under the Barrio Adentro health program is responsible for a decline in infant mortality in Venezuela. In fact, a careful analysis of trends in infant and neonatal mortality shows that the rate of decline is not significantly different from that of the pre-Chávez period, nor from the rate of decline in other Latin American countries. Since 1999, the infant mortality rate in Venezuela has declined at an annual rate of 3.4 percent, essentially identical to the 3.3 percent rate at which it had declined during the previous nine-year period and lower than the rates of decline for the same period in Argentina (5.5 percent), Chile (5.3 percent), and Mexico (5.2 percent).

Bills are coming due:

But by late 2007, Chávez's economic model had begun to unravel. For the first time since early 2004, a majority of voters claimed that both their personal situation and the country's situation had worsened during the preceding year. Scarcities in basic foodstuffs, such as milk, black beans, and sardines, were chronic, and the difference between the official and the black-market exchange rate reached 215 percent. When the Central Bank board received its November price report indicating that monthly inflation had risen to 4.4 percent (equivalent to an annual rate of 67.7 percent), it decided to delay publication of the report until after the vote on the constitutional reform was held.
This growing economic crisis is the predictable result of the gross mismanagement of the economy by Chávez's economic team. During the past five years, the Venezuelan government has pursued strongly expansionary fiscal and economic policies, increasing real spending by 137 percent and real liquidity by 218 percent. This splurge has outstripped even the expansion in oil revenues: the Chávez administration has managed the admirable feat of running a budget deficit in the midst of an oil boom.

But Rodriguez doubts Hugo can do what it takes to fix things:

A sensible solution to Venezuela's overexpansion would require reining in spending and the growth of the money supply. But such a solution is anathema to Chávez, who has repeatedly equated any call for spending reductions with neoliberal dogma. Instead, the government has tried to deal with inflation by expanding the supply of foreign currency to domestic firms and consumers and increasing government subsidies. The result is a highly distorted economy in which the government effectively subsidizes two-thirds of the cost of imports and foreign travel for the wealthy while the poor cannot find basic food items on store shelves. The astounding growth of imports, which have nearly tripled since 2002 (imports of such luxury items as Hummers and 15-year-old Scotch have grown even more dramatically), is now threatening to erase the nation's current account surplus.

Bushies Pining for Paraguay? Lugo Paraguay's Hugo?

2008-03-02T18:01:00.003-05:00

Neil Bush whose only accomplishment thus far in life is to have sired Lauren Bush (yummy) was in Paraguay. I don't know Neil, but hate W as much as you want Neil is the Bush most likely to be kept in a basement and from public view. As some may recall he was involved in a little S&L scandal a ways back. He also made a pretty quick buck on a stock sale under less than ethical circumstances and is somehow connected to former Red China leader Jiang Zemin. His presence in Paraguay was sponsored by the Moonie outfit, Universal Peace Federation. I hate to knock the Moonies since I love WashTimes and was a subscriber of two defunct Moonie pubs Insight and The World & I but they do attract unsavory elements. Hat tip The Latin Americanist.

I should also note that Paraguay and it's undefeated ruling party, Colorado, is the topic of a great piece on OpenDemocracy. Hugo wannabe Lugo is apparently set to end the Colorado winning streak.

Obama and Other Hagel Loving Dems

2008-03-02T17:38:00.003-05:00

Obama is making noises that he would be willing to consider a Republican in his cabinet. Retiring Chuck Hagel, taking McCain's place as every Dems favorite Rep, was mentioned. I'm sure it is just a coincidence but insufferable Chris Dodd mentioned Hagel today in the NYT.

There is an interview with Hagel in the latest issue of The American Interest (sub. required). At one point he sounds rather Obama-ish, although he actually means it while Obama, the most leftist member of the Senate (take that Ted!), seems to only pay lip service to the end of partisanship:

AI: With 11 years gone and one more to go in the Senate, how do you think back on your time here? Some say you’ve moved from many standard conservative positions to more centrist ones. You think that’s a fair description?
Senator Hagel: It is, and part of it has to do with what I’ve learned about the complexity of most of the issues we face as a society. We’re rarely confronted with easy calls, with a clearly “right” and a clearly “wrong” side. Life generally is not that way. But some people, from both parties, like to live in a world of absolutes, and that has polarized politics and strangled any bipartisan progress. People won’t work toward any kind of compromise when they feel they’re giving up their values, standards and beliefs. It has become clear to me, over the course of my 11 years working in this sausage factory here, that without any consensus on how to behave in order to move our country forward, we’re essentially paralyzed. I’ve moved toward the middle because that’s where I think the effective solutions are.
I’ve also learned to better appreciate the importance of personal relationships in how things work here. I’ve seen this President of the United States establish virtually no personal relationships, and it has cost the country. His position has been, “It’s either my way or the highway, because I’m the Decider.” But when you don’t have the lubricant of personal relationships in a democratic government—any form of government, really, but especially a two-party democracy—the gears will lock up, and the system will break down. That’s what has happened, and both sides are to blame.
It’s a very distressing dynamic, but I think the next president will understand that and act on that. Better personal relationships will form, and we’ll see a bipartisan cabinet, among other changes. It’s not a matter of choice, because the challenges facing this country are so immense that we can’t afford another four years of paralysis.

Messing Up the Andes and LA

2008-03-02T17:09:00.003-05:00

NYT has an editorial that focuses on Republican reluctance for free trade with certain Andean countries. Astounding when you consider that the two Dem candidates openly question current agreements such as NAFTA and do not seem inclined to do anything for our friends in LA. OB the Magnificent seems to be willing to bear hug Raulito and Hugo...who knows? If they are nice enough OB may even reenact the who Brezhnev/Honecker lip-lock with them.

Council of Foreign Relations has an excellent Daily Analysis on the Dem hatred for NAFTA along with some helpful links.

FARC Leader F***ed

2008-03-02T16:50:00.004-05:00

Sort of intellectually lazy to resort to profanities but how else to characterize the elimination of Raul Reyes by Colombian forces? I have to give a hat-tip to Boz where I first happened upon the good news. He also has some good analysis and links - so good that anything on my part would be superfluous.

The only new news Boz has not put up is Venezuela's reaction which is to man up along the border to protect FARC guerillas residing in his country...Oh gosh...did I say that out loud? I meant that Chavez put troops along the border to protect the sovereignty of Venezuela. Chavez is also shutting down the embassy in Bogota. Since the Colombians did not touch Venezuelan territory this strikes me as a tad hysterical, assuming that he is not associated with the FARC. Chavez is doing his saber-rattling routine to see if he can boost popularity at home - it worked for Fidel so why not him? At least that seems to be his thinking.

The Unintentionally Hilarious Ted Kennedy

2008-02-24T14:03:00.001-05:00

Seriously how does this man stay in office? Words fail me...watch and laugh.

The Unintentionally Hilarious Tim Russert

2008-02-24T13:56:00.001-05:00

On MTP they discussed the Obama plagiarizing kerfluffle. So who does Timmy turn to kick off the discussion, without a hint of irony mind you, Doris Kearns Goodwin. Now I don't mind Doris, actually I kind of like her. Maybe it has something to do with the young and undeniably hot Mira Sorvino playing her in the movie Quiz Show? (There's that seen where she is ready for bed and correctly answering the ridiculously challenging questions on "21." Speaking of Mira loved her in Barcelona - great flick every conservative would love. Sorry about the digression.) Oh God...where was I? Oh yeah, perhaps my fondness for Ms. KG stems from watching all 637 hours of Ken Burns' Baseball documentary mini-telenovela? Maybe, just maybe, I really liked Team of Rivals, even if I don't want to admit it. For the uninitiated Mrs. Goodwin had her own plagiarism problem.

Deng Xioaping Bridge Player

2008-02-24T13:21:00.003-05:00

I know that sometimes it may appear that I might be speaking from the cavity located at my posterior yet I found a link attesting to Deng Xiaoping's love for Bridge. No mention of his chairmanship of the Chinese Bridge Association but I can assure you that it is true. I am nowhere near as ignorant as I sound.

NYT's DePalma Goes Back to Cuba

2008-02-24T12:58:00.002-05:00

I haven't read Anthony DePalma's The Man Who Invented Fidel (I was and remain too Fideled out to bother) but he has a decent piece on a recent trip to Cuba with his family including his Cuban-American wife. Since luck plays a part in good journalism he happened to pop up at the island nation when Fidel announced his retirement.

DePalma notes that while Americans are clamoring for change Cubans seem to fear it. DePalma does see that some things have changed but not all for the good:

Truth is, things have changed since my first trip to Cuba in 1978. The heavy presence of the Soviet Union then is a faint shadow now, reflected in blue-eyed Cubans named Yuri. There seem to be more new cars on the roads, more fast food on the street, and more buildings undergoing repair. There even seem to be more buses and fewer people waiting for them since Fidel’s younger brother and temporary replacement, Raúl, publicly demanded that something be done about the pitiful mass transit system when I was here just a year ago.
But much has not changed, or has gotten worse. More families live two or three generations in the same cramped apartments. Detention, interrogation and other troubles still descend on people who dissent in ways as small as wearing a plastic wrist band embossed with the word “cambio,” which means change. The press is still controlled, and disloyalty to the Communist Party still raises the suspicion of neighbors that can lead to the loss of a job or a house. Dissidents remain enemies of the state.

DePalma also notes what few have, that Fidel's retirement does not terminate his influence. Since the China model is so oft quoted one need only examine the last days of Mao or the "retirement" of Deng Xiaoping. Mao's courtier's would gather and wait breathlessly for the Chairman's sporadic moments of lucidity for instructions. No one doubted that Deng still ran Red China but his only official post was as the head of the Bridgeplayers association or some other stupid crap like that. Here is DePalma:

Sitting at an old Havana cafe, a friend put it to me this way: Fidel is like a huge Airbus that leaves so much turbulence in its wake that other aircraft cannot take off or land behind it until the air clears. Even in his absence from power, Fidel will shape the actions of whoever comes after him.

Cuba: A Foreign Affairs Flashback

2008-02-24T12:11:00.003-05:00

Foreign Affairs drags out Julia Sweig's piece "Fidel's Final Victory" to mark el lider maximo's impending retirement. I commented on the piece last year. I stand by most of what I said in my post. The one thing I failed to anticipate was Castro actually doing the slow-mo transition. It was in fact, brilliantly executed and it can be qualified as being nothing short of Fidel's final victory. Ultimately, however, the true victors will be the people of Cuba because freedom can only be suppressed for so long.

Never Thought I'd Say This: E.J. Dionne Is Right

2008-02-24T11:40:00.003-05:00

Yes, I support John McCain. Yes, I supported the original incursion into Iraq (on realist grounds) and supported the surge. What I do not and cannot support is Senator McCain's assertion that the greatest threat we face is from terrorists. I do not mean to belittle the threat because it is there but could any action by Osama seriously bring about the collapse of the Republic? The consistently repugnant Mr. Dionne speaking the truth:

Presumably, he's saying that Islamic extremism is more important than everything else--the rise of China and India as global powers, growing resistance to American influence in Europe, the weakening of America's global economic position, the disorder and poverty in large parts of Africa, the alienation of significant parts of Latin America from the United States. Is it in our national interest for all these issues to take a backseat to terrorism?

Dionne puts our terror-phobia in perspective and makes a not so surprising dig at conservatives:

Of course, defeating terrorism is important, and no candidate will say otherwise. But the United States has a lot of work to do in the world. If we're thinking about the next two decades, not to mention the next 90 years, it's a mistake to see terrorism as a "transcendent challenge" that makes all our other interests secondary.
For conservatives, there is something peculiar about turning Islamic extremism into a mighty ideological force with the power to overrun the world. It's odd that so many take seriously Osama bin Laden's lunatic claims that he will build a new Caliphate. (And, by the way, exactly what did the Iraq War contribute to the fight against terrorism?)

Conservatives v. Conservatives

2007-11-09T21:40:00.000-05:00

No this isn't about Andrew Sullivan taking on all conservatives for not backing his man Obama. Seriously - Sullivan's puff piece in The Atlantic has to be the worst thing published in that magazine in ages. I can't imagine Michael Kelly wasting so much ink on an article that says nothing other than I like Obama because he's a cool cat. I digress...

What I meant to discuss is the news that conservative publisher Regnery is being sued by 4 authors for selling their books through Regnery affiliated channels at a deep discount. Here's the thing. I would buy a book from anyone of these dolts unless it was at a deep discount or a freebie from either Human Events or the Conservative Book Club. Who would pay full price for that crap?

I used to like Regnery books. Unfortunately they sold their soul a long time ago and have sacrificed quality works and poisoned the public square with demagogic works that add little to the national debate and even less to improving the conservative movement. In this instance Regnery is a victim of its own success.

Costa Rican Surprise

2007-10-08T20:18:00.000-04:00

After all the scandal and intrigue heading into Sunday's vote I had written off Costa Rica as a CAFTA member. I was wrong. Bully for the Ticos.

WaPost & Letras Libres on MVLL

2007-10-07T01:17:00.001-04:00

About the only obsession more unhealthy than the one a I had for Robert Kaplan is my fixation on Mario Vargas Llosa. As it stands right now WaPost and Letras Libres are not helping. From his perch at WaPost Jonathen Yardley reviews MVLl's latest, The Bad Girl. He hits it right on:

Mario Vargas Llosa's perversely charming new novel isn't among his major books -- it lacks the depth of Conversation in the Cathedral, Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter or even the more recent and less successful The Feast of the Goat-- but it is irresistibly entertaining and, like all of its author's work, formidably smart.

That The Feast of the Goat was not more successful is downright criminal. Yardley correctly notes that the failure to award the Nobel Prize for Literature is "scandalous." I prefer to consider the exclusion criminal.

Letras Libres meanwhile has plastered MVLl on the cover and dedicated almost the entire issue to him...I'm going to lose my mind. They even have small contributions from Carlos Alberto Montaner and Enrique Krauze...the dork in me is thrilled beyond all measure.

Bookpages: Hugo Books Reviewed in NYT

2007-10-07T01:00:00.000-04:00

At the Sunday Book Review Daniel Kurtz-Phelan checks out Hugo Chavez by Cristina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka as well as the entusiastically titled ¡Hugo! by Herbert Matthews...um I mean Bart Jones, who should not be confused with Bert Jones.

I'll keep this brief since I am a bit sleepy. Marcano and Barrera Tyszka's book is a pretty clunky translation of the original Spanish but it is the better of the two. Jones is a boot licking sycophant who loves his Hugo.

Marathon Madrazo: Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater

2007-10-06T13:15:00.000-04:00

Roberto Madrazo could not cheat his way to Los Pinos but Madrazo did cheat his way to another finish line.

Drugs and LA

2007-10-06T12:45:00.000-04:00

Drugs, drugs and drugs. If you would lived in LA you would think nothing else matters to US. Can you blame the people of LA for being resentful. We extol the virtues of the market, preach about the importance of free trade and one product that they can produce in abundance and seems to have impressive demand in the US is the one thing that we chastise them for.

In Mexico they recently snagged 10 tons of coke as well as a Sinaloa cartel head but Mexicans are still wary of an anti-drug aid package proposed by W. Meanwhile coca cultivation is ramping up in Ecuador and I don't care what the LAT piece says Correa will run US out eventually and stop cooperating to control the trade. A concern for US is the fact that we are scrambling for a new base in LA without much success.

I don't drink and I don't smoke. I've never touched a narcotic except once or twice in my younger days as friends shared and I happened to be seated between. So no, I did not inhale, exhale or even hale. That being said I say LEGALIZE IT. Stop punishing the cultivators for our sins. Stop encouraging illegal trafficking. Who is to say that those same networks will be used to smuggle in terrorists or even weapons of mass destruction?

More Hugo and His Plan for LA

2007-09-30T00:15:00.000-04:00

Writing in the Hoover Digest where he hangs his hat William Ratliff uses W's tour of LA as an excuse to assess Hugo's vision for LA:

Polls in Latin America have found Bush slightly more popular personally than Chávez, but many Latins nonetheless resonate in varying degrees to much of what the Venezuelan has to say, and much more so now than 10 years ago. He has eagerly taken the role Fidel Castro held for decades as the region’s foremost anti-American purveyor in chief of false hope. If one flushes out the incessant ad hominem attacks on Bush and other American leaders, Chávez’s message can be boiled down to three points:

Most of Latin America is plagued by seemingly intractable poverty and inequality.
The United States and entrenched domestic elites and institutions are responsible for this.
Chávez’s “twenty-first-century socialism” is the hope for the impoverished masses who seek a free and prosperous future.

He is dead right on the first point, partly right on the second, and dead wrong on the third.

On to our friend Hugo:

Chávez is a newfangled old-fashioned caudillo who is far more inclined toward faith than objective analysis. That faith is in Himself, the new messiah whose gospel is twenty-first-century socialism. Chávez talks of socialism, but his style is left-fascism; his sermons and actions lead to authoritarian paternalism, and not the nurturing sort. Its essence is simple: “Go home, gringo, and leave Latin America to Latins—and to Me.”

This is the earthly salvation offered by every Chavista messiah in Latin America today. But tragically, Chávez’s gospel is just corked wine in a new bottle. Twenty-first-century socialism is an aggressive and globalized rehash of the type of rule that caused and sustained Latin America’s underdevelopment over the centuries. It is the latest adaptation of the late fifteenth-century Iberian view of God, man, and institutions that over many centuries made and kept Latin America the most unequal region on earth.

Stop for a second..."most unequal region on earth." Is it really more unequal than Africa? It's not that I don't believe him but give me a stat or a footnote.

So what does LA need?

Thus Latin America’s real needs now, as in centuries past, are precisely the opposite of Chavista authoritarian socialism. It needs greater pluralism, economic liberalization, truly free trade, much higher-quality governance, greatly expanded and improved education, and more opportunity under impartial law. These policies must be put into practice in individual countries by their own leaders with popular insistence and support. Latin America is not likely to have reforms in an “Asian” mold, for those have often relied on superior leaders combining vision, realism, and patience who have not turned up often in the Latin world. Up to now, most Latins have been unwilling, which is their choice, or unable to significantly modify traditional cultural or institutional norms that prevent their societies from growing like the Asian “tigers” and “dragons.” Thus, much of Latin America is rapidly falling behind other parts of the developing world, particularly Asia.

As for our role, it is not so well defined in this piece -

Although U.S. policy itself cannot erase this Latin tradition of avoiding responsibility, it can foster reform, if Latins want it enough to sacrifice for it. Such reform also would serve U.S. interests. Besides changing some of the counterproductive U.S. policies toward Latin America, which no recent president yet has been able to do, there are other steps we can take.

President Bush’s newly discovered interest in social justice and other issues at the top of Latin agendas is a big step in the right direction. His 2007 trip was far more effective than the one to the APEC forum in Santiago, Chile, in late 2004, when he struck out with Latin public opinion while a much more personable Chinese President Hu Jintao was hitting a home run.

Finally our focus should not necessarily be on Chavez but the rest of LA:

Despite his links to Iran and Russia, Chávez is primarily a threat not to the United States but to the well-being of Latin Americans. His “socialism” will further reduce their chances of prospering or even surviving in the modern world—and that is what collides most seriously with the interests of the United States. Thus our strategy in combating him and his ideas is more constructive attention to the region as a whole, not direct combat with Caracas.

In the Tanks: Heritage on Correa

2007-09-29T23:34:00.000-04:00

A Heritage Foundation paper by James Roberts points out the similarities between Hugo and Correa - not much new there. All the usual notes are hit, the drive to socialism, the eagerness to rewrite the constitution, tweak the US and kiss Iranian tush. How we stop the lefty Latin slide makes up the last part of the paper:

The U.S. should do the following:

Reiterate to President Correa that the United States expects Ecuador to continue to respect democratic neighbors, continue cooperation on fighting drug trafficking and international crime, and invest in its own long-term stability and prosperity through policies that favor political and economic free choice;
Develop new programs to boost personal contact with Americans and counter the armies of Cuban doctors and Venezuelan security advisers streaming into Ecquador;
Increase support for civil society groups and beef up public diplomacy efforts to strengthen local voices proposing independent solutions to Ecuador's poverty and governance troubles;
Demonstrate goodwill regarding possible resumption of free trade talks if the situation improves; and
Redirect security assistance as necessary and adjust strategies if America loses tenant rights at Ecuador's Manta air base for drug interdiction efforts.

All well and good but kind of vague isn't it? I could come up with this stuff and I am not even an expert, although I play one in the blogosphere. Here's one that I would like to see us try - stop bugging our neighbor's to the south about drug trafficking. If there is money in the drug trade it is only because we want it. It's not Shorty's fault that I am 15 lbs. overweight. It is my fault for insisting on getting the full dinner of baby back ribs with a side order of corn on the cob.

I'll discuss more on it later but the Foreign Policy's cover story says it best - Legalize It.

Bolivia: Not So Stable

2007-09-19T05:10:00.000-04:00

The reliably left wing and pro-Evo opendemocracy laments the growing division and polarization of Bolivia. Of course those nasty elites from Santa Cruz are to blame.

Castro Playbook: Hugo

2007-09-18T22:41:00.000-04:00

Hugo is now taking aim at the private schools.

Castro Playbook: Evo Style

2007-09-18T22:37:00.000-04:00

Evo casts out the bait and tries to reel in his own Herbert Matthews. Despite the divisions and polarization in Bolivia NYT reporter Simon Romero is impressed by the nation's stability.

Baba-Bull Watch: Corn Crappers

2007-09-18T22:25:00.000-04:00

It's hard to rip Babalu, seriously it is. Sure the rant on Nebraskan leaders kowtowing to the Cuban commies is a bit over the top...c'mon if the Cubes actually are paying cash what harm does it do? Yes they are a bunch of rubes from corn country but despite our desperate hopes it is unlikely that the next Cuban government will turn them away just because they did business with Castro. If that was the case then the free Cuban government would only be able to trade with the US and no one else.

So just when I think that Baba-Bull is a waste then comes a great post on the plight of political prisoner Normando Hernandez. It is a must read...

Eddie Reviews Kaplan

2007-09-18T22:11:00.001-04:00

My copy hasn't even come in the mail, but Eddie seems to have already polished it off. Here is Eddie's conclusion at his relatively new blog, Hidden Unities. I think most Kaplan fans won't disagree:

So in the end, Kaplan admits that perhaps his time with the military has run its course. We can hope. I deeply admire the service Kaplan has rendered the military, especially my parent service, the Navy. I would happily recommend this book to anyone, in particular the senior NCO’s (chief petty officers in the Navy) who Kaplan convincingly portrays as some of the most involved and skilled leaders of people in the world. It would be exceptional reading for a high school or college student considering the great challenge and honor serving in the military can be. Kaplan writes of heroes, of champions who are yet often the most ordinary and down to Earth people you could ever know, despite many being legends in the making whose story is not nearly finished (Kaplan, Barnett and even Bill Kristol are on point in predicting the fine crop of political and society leaders many of them will become).

Yet we know Kaplan can do better. We need him to do better, to do more, to look above and beyond, and below. Unique challenges exist in India’s local and regional cultural, political and religious tensions, the mystery of China’s rise and what’s really in play in its countryside and breakneck development, Nigeria’s race to insolvency, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Columbia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Southern Africa, etc. etc. He’s needed in all these places and amid a universe of serious issues that he’s addressed in the past and that now could be revisited and reconsidered. Not that he will even broach half of them, but he certainly occupies a special niche that few others can dream of filling. Yet he’s in the field of a generation of fine writers (Josef Joffe, Dana Priest, Richard Halloran, Thomas E. Ricks, etc.) who’ve already got it well-covered. Why?

For the Love of God....LET IT GO!

2007-09-18T21:59:00.000-04:00

Herald Watch keeps all those Little Havana loonies abreast of the latest scuttlebut in the Oscar Corral case. Enough already. Let him be.

Defending the Undefendable: Magda Montiel Davis

2007-09-18T21:40:00.000-04:00

Uh....uh....screw it. I draw the line at sticking up for sycophants, commie apologists and child molesters. Magda is at least two out of three. 26th Parallel notes Magda's latest blatant hypocrisy. Last time she did Cuba's bidding she was at least willing to take their money. Now she is taking our taxpayer dollars to help out Fidel, that is just wrong. The woman is just plain evil.

I feel compelled to state however, that I believe she is right in this case. This is no Elian situation. The mother has stated that she wants her child to be with the father. The father, motivated perhaps by the incessant images of Juan Miguel sitting by Fidel at functions wants his kid back. Regardless it is his right and the mother's wish. As for the foster parents let us not suddenly paint the normally self-serving Joe Cubas as a saint. After all he is the one that pushed for the gag order to be lifted on the case. I could be wrong but I do not recall Cubas doing anything completely self-less in his career so I am having a hard time picturing him as a hero.

Rudy Giuliani is Giving Himself Nightmares

2007-09-18T21:30:00.000-04:00

The three time Liberal Party nominee for mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani claims in an ad that he is the liberals' worst nightmare. I like Rudy but he is full of it here.

Kaplan Reviewed in WaPost

2007-09-16T20:48:00.000-04:00

Let's make this clear I am only posting this because I want to beat ComingAnarchy to the punch. Love those guys. Anyway there's a so-so review of Robert Kaplan's new book, Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air at Sea, and on the Ground in WaPost's Bookworld. As much as I like Kaplan I must confess that the conclusion of the review is somewhat on target:

In the 1990s, the peripatetic Kaplan wrote the richly detailed travel narratives that American soldiers read to educate themselves about the exotic locations to which they might deploy. His Balkan Ghosts was all-but-required for every Army officer headed for Bosnia. But a few years ago, he changed tack and decided to write about the troops themselves. Both are worthwhile pursuits, but on the basis of this offering, the former represented a greater value to the nation.

Defending the Undefendable: Nick Gutierrez

2007-09-16T19:26:00.000-04:00

Eye on Miami rips into Nick Gutierrez because of a letter he wrote defending the Bay of Pigs Memorial. Now I understand why they are upset but there is no reason to get personal. Nick is not a friend and I would not even consider him an acquaintance but I have run into him a couple of times. I'm even pretty certain that he would tear into me for some of my views. Nonetheless I have always found Nick to be gracious and accommodating.

Nick is passionate about Cuba and the cause of freedom. Lucky for him he has been able to combine his personal and professional interests. If he comes across as a bulldog sometimes, especially while wearing his professional then he is doing his job and doing it well. Knock Nick if you don't agree with him but let's not get personal especially if you don't know him.

Wesley Clark on the Next War

2007-09-16T18:34:00.000-04:00

Wesley Clark has a piece in WaPost and as always he annoys me. More than any other general in our recent history he feels the need to convince of his genius. Perhaps it is because he fought a war that no one on the home front cared about. It is unfortunate that the lessons he learned from that effort are applicable to every potential conflict that we encounter.

Gen. Clark does not realize that his situation was unique. In the Balkans there was no tangible national interest at stake. It was the quintessential example of what Michael Mandelbaum labeled as "foreign policy as social work." Tolerance for casualties was obviously non-existent affecting both the planning and execution of the war. Let's not forget that a democratically elected leader, no matter how odious was bound to be more responsive to domestic pressure.

Clark has a number of lessons for us:

Any future U.S. wars will undoubtedly be shaped by the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, however painful that might be. Every military refights the last war, but good militaries learn lessons from the past. We'd better get them right, and soon. Here, the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't be more clear: Don't ever, ever go to war unless you can describe and create a more desirable end state.

Really? What if the threat is imminent? What if we know that a state is unleashing terrorist attacks upon us but we fret that we don't know what leaders will pop up next? We knew that heroin production would ramp up as soon as the Taliban was removed. Should we have negotiated with the Taliban to hand over Osama?

Then there is this confusing passage:

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. military embarked upon another wave of high-tech modernization -- and paid for it by cutting ground forces, which were being repeatedly deployed to peacekeeping operations in places such as Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. Instead of preparing for more likely, low-intensity conflicts, we were still spoiling for the "big fight," focusing on such large conventional targets as Kim Jong Il's North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- and now we lack adequate ground forces. Bulking up these forces, perhaps by as many as 100,000 more active troops, and refitting and recovering from Iraq could cost $70 billion to $100 billion.

Ok, so if we would not be engaged in "peacekeeping" (peace-forcing) operations we would not have had manpower shortages? We should have been preparing for "more likely, low-intensity conflicts" but we looked for a "big fight?" Didn't the big fight that never happened with N. Korea come looking for us? I would also argue that Saddam's refusal to come clean on WMDs, whether he had them or not, was the problem. So we should only look for small, tiny, little problems that have no bearing on our interests at home and send small, tiny forces with technology galore. So who takes care of the big problems? The eUNuchs?

A RINO No More - The Case of Lincoln Chafee

2007-09-16T18:18:00.000-04:00

Not that it matters to anyone anymore but Lincoln Chafee has left the GOP. Chafee justly rips the current cons lack of fiscal discipline but are tax cuts the problem? Tax receipts have been rising so the problem is not PAYGO cuts but rather an inability to hold the line on spending. Does that mean he's got to change his first name to something perhaps more appropriate? May I recommend Buchanan or Pierce?

Hugo's Gay...Seriously

2007-09-16T18:14:00.000-04:00

Ok, maybe not so seriously, but you know that a recent piece in a respected paper in Spain questioning Hugo's heterosexual credentials is bound to ruffle his feathers. Hat tip Vivirlatino.

Castro, Writing Fiend

2007-09-16T10:09:00.000-04:00

LAT is the latest to reflect on Fidel's recent prodigious output. Just past the halfway point the article does note that perhaps "some" of the pieces may have been ghostwritten. The good Dr. Suchlicki gets quoted too. He thinks that Fidel is putting them together with his personal secretary, Carlos Valenciaga.

Danny Ortega Whips Out the Castro Playbook

2007-09-15T06:41:00.000-04:00

Only a Latin American country would willfully elect as its president a man who had plunged the nation into a bloody civil war, leaving it in economic ruins all the while sexually molesting his step-daughter. The world is justly outraged over the Czech's seeming inability to outlaw child-porn but nary a word has been uttered in the case of Danny.

Lately Danny has been making a nuisance of himself, as we knew he would. He got all huffy when Esso refused Venezuelan oil so he slapped a back-tax accusation at them. Sound familiar? That is pretty much what ended it between the US and Cuba during the Eisenhower Admin. In June 1960 American oil refineries in Cuba refused Soviet oil shipments and Castro nationalized them.

CHECK IT OUT: Orishas

2007-09-15T00:24:00.000-04:00

The Orishas are so good that even incredibly crappy Miami radio has played them before. They have a new greatest hits collection so if you haven't listened their inventive fusion of traditional Cuban rhythms and hip-hop - now is the time to start.

CHECK IT OUT: Habana Abierto

2007-09-15T00:13:00.000-04:00

Listen, I love Gloria but her music is crap and she can't sing to save her life. If you want to check out something totally different be sure to go to the Dade County Auditorium on October 27 to check out Habana Abierta. The versatile Nat Chediak produced their Boomerang their last release which I can highly recommend. Encuentro en la red has conveniently posted Habana Abierta videos, be sure to visit.

Bringing the Troops Home Now! Means 20 Months

2007-09-15T00:02:00.000-04:00

This is for all those bumper sticker politicos who talk a good game but have no idea of what they are talking about. This is Max Boot in Commentary talking about how not to get out of Iraq:

In any case, there is no simple or safe way rapidly to remove 160,000 troops, 64,000 foreign contractors, 45,000 vehicles, and millions of tons of equipment from a war zone. Estimates from within the American military suggest that an orderly departure would take, at a minimum, 12 to 20 months to accomplish. (In Vietnam, our withdrawal was conducted over four years.) To leave faster than that would require a precipitous abandonment of allies and equipment. U.S. forces would have to fight their way out of the country along Route Tampa, the main supply line to the south, with insurgents determined at every inch of the way to inflict a final humiliation on the defeated superpower. The pell-mell scramble would likely produce traumatic images akin to those of the last helicopter lifting off from a Saigon rooftop in 1975.
In light of this grisly prospect, most advocates of withdrawal suggest a timeline that, they hope, would make our retreat somewhat more orderly. The leading legislation along these lines, co-sponsored by Carl Levin and Jack Reed in the Senate and Ike Skelton in the House, would begin troop withdrawals within 120 days of passage and complete the process by next April. This legislation passed the House in July but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans seeking to give the administration, and General David Petraeus, time to meet the September 15 deadline for an assessment of the surge’s progress.

Under the terms of the Levin-Reed bill, the President would still have the option, even after April 2008, to retain a “limited presence” of troops for various missions yet to be specified. In this, the legislation’s sponsors were following the work of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), whose December 2006 report has become a touchstone for many critics of the war. The ISG, too, called for a general pullout, to culminate if possible by next spring. But even after the withdrawal of “all combat brigades not necessary for force protection,” other U.S. forces, according to the ISG, could be deployed “in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special-operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search-and-rescue.”

ZBig Lie

2007-09-14T23:04:00.000-04:00

Zbigniew Brzezinski (God I hate spelling his name) is coming out for Obama. He used this opportunity to tout the Carter administration's achievement in MidEast policy. Noah Pollack is less than impressed:

The administration didn’t “bring about” peace between Israel and Egypt so much as hold a summit at Camp David to work out the details after Israel and Egypt had already committed themselves, independently and entirely in pursuit of their own interests, to a peace treaty. From the outset of the Carter administration, the American commitment had been not to a deal between Israel and Egypt, but to a comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian question, and it was during the administration’s busy pursuit of a renewed Geneva Conference, inclusive of the Soviet Union, Israel, and the PLO, that the Israel-Egypt deal essentially fell into Carter’s lap.

Castroism Will Not Survive Castro (Fidel)

2007-09-14T22:25:00.000-04:00

Irving Louis Horowitz who along with one of my favorite professors ever, Jaime Suchlicki (guess where I went to school?) puts together the indispensable anthology Cuban Communism (currently in its 11th edition) has a piece in the latest issue of The National Interest (sub. required). Horowitz draws interesting parallels between Spain's Francisco Franco and Fidel, noting that the system Franco did not survive him and that Castro's is unlikely to survive him. That does not mean however that he expects to democracy to flourish anytime soon:

Despite some of the more prevalent predictions regarding Cuba, my own thinking is that Cuba will become neither benevolent democracy nor benign dictatorship in the near future. Instead, one can expect a return to the classical Latin model of military authority. The fact that Raúl Castro has been Cuba’s defense minister since the early 1960s and has also served as a direct representative of Fidel in strategic policy issues provides a linchpin and continuum that may not be royal but is certainly dynastic.
The Cuban military, the only solid force in the nation other than the Communist Party, will indeed inhibit, if not dismantle, the current communist apparatus. At the same time, it will severely limit tendencies toward multiparty change. Even if Raúl Castro is open to some sort of power-sharing arrangement with others, his own strong links to the armed forces almost ensure his role as maximum leader. The transition from the charismatic Fidel to Raúl will be characterized by an elevated public presence of Cuba’s armed forces.

In the end, however, the system that Fidel hoped to create will go with him:

What I will forward with some certitude is that the same final judgment made by the fine historian Raymond Carr on the Spanish tyrant Franco will also await the Cuban tyrant, Fidel Castro: "His rule, he claimed, would be for life. And so it turned out to be. But ‘the novel solution’ could not outlast its architect. There was no Francoism after Franco." And so it will be with Fidel Castro: There will be no Castroism after Castro.
The common aspects of Francoism and Castroism limit their continuation. Both were driven by a cult of personality that becomes difficult to extend beyond the life of the person. And the sweeping repression so central to both dictatorships depends on an image of invincibility that is often undermined by the death of the leader. The reliance on foreign allies generally makes the dictatorship less tenable and the dependence on a command economy becomes unsustainable, particularly in the current Cuban context.
The expected death of Castroism becomes the ultimate irony and penalty of foisting upon a decent people a truncated Marxism-Stalinism, making endless appeals to personal sacrifice and metaphysical history, instead of governing through modest guidance and the presumption that human beings are quite capable of determining their own lives.

Only if You Are Voting for Ron Paul

2007-09-14T21:55:00.000-04:00

If you like Ron Paul, you'll love Lew Rockwell. There was actually one day last week when he managed not to post a story on Ron Paul. I confess a weakness for both Paul and Rockwell. Paul got my vote the first time I voted for Prez (dating myself). As for Rockwell he was essential in the creation and success of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I never found him to be as capable a polemicist as his mentor Murray Rothbard, but he has carried on Rothbard's legacy . I need to make it clear that there are good and bad things about that legacy. If you are not sure what I am talking about read Brian Doherty's excellent Radicals for Capitalism. I was also a charter subscriber to the Rothbard Rockwell Report even though I was hardly a fan of its paleocon/paleolib experiment. I should make it clear that I have no intention of voting for Paul this time and that while I am intrigued by Rockwell's site I am rarely, if ever, in agreement.

Richard Haas on Petraeus

2007-09-14T21:41:00.000-04:00

Richard Haas the Prez of CFR and the author of the worthwhile, if somewhat simplistic, The Opportunity likes what he saw from Petraeus and Croker:

My overriding impression is that the administration has, to some extent—maybe a large extent—regained control of the Iraq debate and that two arguments seem to be gaining traction. One is that anything that smacked of what the Iraq Study Group termed a “precipitous withdrawal” would be a strategic error. Secondly, there has been sufficient progress, at least on the military side in certain areas, to justify some continuation of the policy. On top of that, Petraeus added the dimension of some withdrawals and as I understand it we are essentially looking at a return to pre-surge levels by next spring/ summer.
So in some ways, as a result, he has co-opted the reductions argument. Let me complicate things with one more point. Even a lot of the Democrats who opposed the policy aren’t calling for total withdrawal. If you deconstruct their position, a lot of them are talking about residual forces in certain places for certain missions. So essentially now we are talking about the pace of drawdown and the size and the role of the residual force. That to me is an “inside-the-Beltway” debate. So what this suggests to me is that sixteen months from now, when a new president takes over, you are likely to see a U.S. presence of plus-or-minus 100,000 troops in Iraq, doing a lot of training, but still doing some combat missions in the central part of the country. Again, I think the bottom line is that the administration has probably bought itself sixteen more months of something that looks a lot like the status quo.

Kaplan on Petraeus and His Report

2007-09-14T21:22:00.000-04:00

Kaplan is obviously a fan of Gen. Petraeus. All this Petraeus talk makes me want to re-read Atkinson's In the Company of Soldiers, which I confess to not liking the first time around. First Kaplan says that the General is the right man for the right time:

In previous wars, presidents have reached down into the bureaucracy to find the most competent generals. Lincoln was famous for discarding generals until he got the right one, Ulysses S. Grant. John Pershing was promoted above other officers to command troops in World War I. George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower were also plucked from the ranks to command troops in World War II. But George W. Bush and his secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, settled for a barely competent general, Ricardo Sanchez, for the absolutely crucial job of getting the military occupation of Iraq off to a good start. When Sanchez failed, they then settled for a merely ordinary man, George Casey, under whom the situation continued to deteriorate. If you are whom you appoint, Sanchez and Casey speak volumes about the Bush administration. It took nearly four years of war for the Bush administration to choose the kind of general that previous presidents would have been hunting for—and demanding—from the very beginning: David Petraeus.

Kaplan dismisses the notion that either Petraeus or Amb. Crocker could be percieved as Bush men.

The idea that General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are front men for the administration is ludicrous. Until he took the job as overall ground commander in Iraq, Petraeus was a favorite of liberal journalists: the Princeton man who enjoyed the company of the media and intellectuals, so much so that he was vaguely distrusted by other general officers who envied the good ink he received. As for Crocker, he is a hard-core Arabist, a professional species that I once wrote a book about: He is the least likely creature on earth to buy into neoconservative ideas about the Middle East. Neither of these men are identified with the decision to go to war. If I had to bet, I’d say that Crocker especially would have been against it, like his other Arabist colleagues. Thus, these men have no personal stake in proving the president right. They and their staffs are much more likely to provide a balanced analysis of the reality in Iraq than senators and congressmen looking over their shoulders at opinion polls and future elections. As Petraeus said, “I wrote this testimony myself,” meaning, the White House had nothing to do with it. Watching them brief Congress Monday, I came away convinced that they made a better impression on the public than anyone else in the room.

Kaplan ultimately believes things are getting better, but we are still going to be stuck...

Probably the two most interesting statements in Petraeus’s report will get little coverage. First, that the data analysis he used to brief Congress was found by two intelligence agencies to be the best available on the Iraq war, and that reenlistment rates of troops in Iraq are above average: 130 percent among younger enlistees and 115 percent among those in mid-career. Those statistics constitute telling evidence that the troops themselves continue to find great meaning in their work, suggesting that they certainly don’t believe the cause is lost.

Of course, there is a basic contradiction in the analyses of Petraeus and Crocker. If Iraq has made all the progress they show in their charts and yet would fall apart if we left, then how relevant is that progress in the first place? The editorial writers at The New York Times remind us that military progress is meaningless without political progress. By that logic, since there has been no tangible national reconciliation at the top levels of government in Baghdad, there has been no meaningful progress at all. But that may be too neat an equation. If the surge has helped fortify political progress on the ground at the tribal level in Anbar and other regions of the country—by solidifying the Sunni alliance against al-Qaeda—then perhaps we should not rush toward the exit gates. Just because we can’t engineer change at the top does not mean that we can’t engineer change at the bottom in a way that will gradually and organically affect the top. As Crocker said, “The current course is hard; the alternatives are far worse.” Indeed, as Petraeus indicated, a rapid withdrawal would unleash centrifugal forces in Iraq that would tear the country further apart, whereas a slow and gradual withdrawal over time will improve the situation.

Alas, a series of dictators, culminating in Saddam Hussein, built a state out of a multiconfessional and multiethnic hodgepodge. Because that hodgepodge was so unwieldy—a Frankenstein monster of a polity—the force required to control it was, by necessity, tyrannical in the extreme. With that extreme tyranny now dismantled, rebuilding the Iraqi state must begin from scratch. It may be no accident that the progress we have seen is at the bottom, since that might be the only place where such progress can even begin to take hold.

Bottom line: I suspect we will be stuck in Iraq with tens of thousands of troops for years to come. The results we obtain may be meager, but they’ll still be better than if we suddenly withdrew.

Fred at Versailles

2007-09-14T21:13:00.001-04:00

Andrew Sullivan posts a pic of Fred Thompson munching on a pastelito . Hey Fred! They have better ones at Gilbert's.

Defending the Undefendable: Oscar Corral

2007-09-14T20:43:00.000-04:00

Don't get me wrong it is hard not to snicker over the whole Oscar Corral kerfuffle aka Hummergate, but enough already. So every right-wing Cube's favorite Herald reporter gets busted seeking the assistance of the professional to relieve him of that after work stress and he gets busted. Obviously he exercised poor judgement, but does he really deserved to be raked over the coals for it? He got busted, he's obviously been suspended or fired and that all pails in comparison to whatever he had waiting for him when he got home. Just let it be already. So the Herald didn't make the arrest a front page story, so what? No one cares about Oscar Corral except the Cubes, trust me. A congressman getting busted...that is front page news. A story about journalists and a potential conflict of interest...even if it was COMPLETELY erroneous...that is front page news. A local reporter busted for trying to pay for a BJ, the only reason it's news is because so many people hate him already.

HeraldWatch an otherwise enjoyable and informative blog links to content provided by Antonio de la Cova, PhD. Seriously, doesn't someone with a PhD have something more important to do. Or have something with a tad more intellectual heft to devote his time to? Apparently not. de la Cova makes what I assume he thinks are brilliant points in Hummergate. The man even goes through the trouble of posting the police reports for Corral, the prostitute and the pimp. de la Cova needs a life or a better job that will occupy his time.

David Remnick on the Israel Lobby Controversy

2007-09-11T21:51:00.000-04:00

David Remnick is a good and thoughtful writer. There is no better work about the deathroes of the Soviet Union than his Lenin's Tomb. As a boxing fan King of the World, his take on Muhammad Ali and his legacy, was a delight. As for what he has done to the New Yorker, forget about it. Much like Michael Kelly at The Atlantic he has brought a moribound mag back to life.

For the uninitiated John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two respected foreign policy experts and realists wrote a ponderous essay ripping the "Israel Lobby." Now they have turned the massive essay into an equally massive book. With little to no original research or work it is more of an extended essay...on steroids. I have not read too much Walt but I did like Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Ironically his concept of "offensive realism" was the basis for my support of the war in Iraq, a war he opposed. Enough of my babbling here is Remnick on the not-so-dynamic duo of Mearsheimer and Walt:

Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists. They are serious scholars, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. They are right to describe the moral violation in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. (In this, most Israelis and most American Jews agree with them.) They were also right about Iraq. The strategic questions they raise now, particularly about Israel’s privileged relationship with the United States, are worth debating––just as it is worth debating whether it is a good idea to be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. But their announced objectives have been badly undermined by the contours of their argument—a prosecutor’s brief that depicts Israel as a singularly pernicious force in world affairs. Mearsheimer and Walt have not entirely forgotten their professional duties, and they periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities. But their conclusions are unmistakable: Israel and its lobbyists bear a great deal of blame for the loss of American direction, treasure, and even blood.

Then he gets into details:

It’s a narrative that recounts every lurid report of Israeli cruelty as indisputable fact but leaves out the rise of Fatah and Palestinian terrorism before 1967; the Munich Olympics; Black September; myriad cases of suicide bombings; and other spectaculars. The narrative rightly points out the destructiveness of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and America’s reluctance to do much to curtail them, but there is scant mention of Palestinian violence or diplomatic bungling, only a recitation of the claim that, in 2000, Israel offered “a disarmed set of Bantustans under de-facto Israeli control.” (Strange that, at the time, the Saudi Prince Bandar told Yasir Arafat, “If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime.”) Nor do they dwell for long on instances when the all-powerful Israel lobby failed to sway the White House, as when George H. W. Bush dragged Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid peace conference.

Lobbying is inscribed in the American system of power and influence. Big Pharma, the A.A.R.P., the N.R.A., the N.A.A.C.P., farming interests, the American Petroleum Institute, and hundreds of others shuttle between K Street and Capitol Hill. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national-security adviser, recently praised Mearsheimer and Walt in the pages of Foreign Policy for the service of “initiating a much-needed public debate,” but he went on to provide a tone and a perspective that are largely missing from their arguments. “The participation of ethnic or foreign-supported lobbies in the American policy process is nothing new,” he observes. “In my public life, I have dealt with a number of them. I would rank the Israeli-American, Cuban-American, and Armenian-American lobbies as the most effective in their assertiveness. The Greek- and Taiwanese-American lobbies also rank highly in my book. The Polish-American lobby was at one time influential (Franklin Roosevelt complained about it to Joseph Stalin), and I daresay that before long we will be hearing a lot from the Mexican-, Hindu-, and Chinese-American lobbies as well.”

Rigoberta Men-loser

2007-09-11T21:27:00.000-04:00

NYT is left scratching its collective cranium and the abysmal failure that was Rigoberta Menchu's stillborn presidential bid. They whip out a whole bunch of reasons and trip over a part of the truth:

Ms. Menchú won her prize while living in exile in Mexico, and has always been far better known outside Guatemala than at home.

Then there is shall we say the inconvenient truth about Menchu and her claim to fame as recounted by the admittedly annoying David Horowitz (trust me, he's a self-important prig):

Published in 1982, I, Rigoberta Menchu was actually written by a French leftist, Elisabeth Burgos-Debray, wife of the Marxist, Regis Debray, who provided the "foco strategy" for Che Guevaras failed effort to foment a guerilla war in Bolivia in the 1960s. The idea of the foco was that urban intellectuals could insert a military front inside a system of social oppression, and provide the catalyst for revolutionary change. Debrays misguided theory got Guevara and an undetermined number of Bolivian peasants killed, and as we shall see, is at the root of the tragedies that overwhelmed Rigoberta Menchu and her family, and that are (falsely) chronicled in I, Rigoberta Menchu.

Horowitz then talks about David Stoll and his findings:

These and other pertinent details have now been established by anthropologist David Stoll, one of the leading academic experts on Guatemala. Stoll interviewed more than 120 Guatemalans, including relatives, friends, neighbors, and former teachers and classmates of Rigoberta Menchu, over a ten-year period, as the basis of his new biography, Rigoberta Menchu And The Story of All Poor Guatemalans. To coincide with the publication of Stoll's book, the New York Times sent reporter Larry Rohrter to Guatemala to attempt to verify Stolls findings, which he was readily able to do.

Perhaps the most salient of Stolls findings is the way in which Rigoberta has distorted the sociology of her family situation, and that of the Mayans in the region of Uspantan, to conform to Marxist precepts. The Menchus were not part of the landless poor, and Rigoberta had no brother who starved to death, at least none that her own family could remember. The ladinos were not a ruling caste in Rigobertas town or district, in which there were no large estates, or fincas, as she claims. Far from being a dispossessed peasant, Vicente Menchu had title to 2,753 hectares of land. The 22-year land dispute described by Rigoberta, which is the central event in her book leading to the rebellion and the tragedies that followed was, in fact, over a tiny, but significant, 151 hectare parcel. Most importantly, Vicente Menchus "heroic struggle against the landowners who wanted to take our land" was in fact not a dispute with representatives of a European-descended conquistador class, but with his own Mayan relatives, the Tum family, headed by his wifes uncle.

Vicente Menchu did not organize a peasant resistance called the Committee for Campesino Unity. He was a conservative peasant insofar as he was political at all. Even more importantly, his consuming passion was not any social concern, but the family feud with his in-laws, who were small landowning peasants like himself. It was his involvement in this family feud that caused him to be caught up in the larger political drama enacted by students and professional revolutionaries, that was really irrelevant to his concerns and that ultimately killed him.

At the end of the Seventies, coinciding with a global Soviet offensive, Cubas Communist dictator, Fidel Castro, launched a new turn in Cuban foreign policy, sponsoring and arming a series of guerrilla uprisings in Central America. The most significant of these were in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and followed lines that had been laid down by Regis Debray and Che Guevara a decade before. The leaders of these movements were generally not Indian peasants but urban Hispanics, principally the disaffected scions of the middle- and upper-classes. They were often the graduates of cadre training centers in Moscow and Havana, and of terrorist training camps in Lebanon and East Germany. (The leaders of the Salvadoran guerillas even included a Lebanese Communist and Shiite Muslim named Shafik Handal.)

One of these forces, Guatemalas Guerrilla Army of the Poor, showed up in Uspantan, the largest township near Rigobertas village of Chimel, on April 29, 1979. According to eyewitnesses, the guerrillas painted everything within reach red, grabbed the tax collectors money and threw it in the streets, tore down the jail, released the prisoners, and chanted in the town square, "Were defenders of the poor," for fifteen or twenty minutes.

None of the guerilla intruders was masked, because none of them was local. As strangers, they had no understanding of the situation in Uspantan in which virtually all the land disputes were between the Mayan inhabitants themselves. Instead, they perceived the social problem according to the Marxist textbook version, which has now been perpetuated by Rigoberta and the Nobel Prize committee through Rigobertas book. In their first revolutionary act, the guerrillas executed two local ladino landholders.

Thinking that this successful violence had established the guerrillas as the power in his region, Vicente Menchu cast his fate with them, providing them with a meeting place, and accompanying them on a protest. But Guatemalas security forces, which had been primed for Castros Soviet-backed hemispheric offensive, responded by descending on the region with characteristic brutality. The killings that ensued were abetted by enraged relatives of the murdered ladino peasants seeking revenge on the leftist assassins. The trail of violence left many innocents slaughtered in its wake, including Rigobertas parents and a second brother (whose death Rigoberta sensationalizes by falsely claiming that he was burned alive and that she and her parents were forced to witness the act).

The most famous incident in Rigobertas book is the January 1980 occupation of the Spanish embassy in Guatemala City by a group of guerrillas and protesting peasants. Vicente Menchu was the peasant spokesman. The occupation itself was led by the Robin Garcia Revolutionary Student Front. A witness described to David Stoll how Vicente Menchu was primed for his role:

They would tell Don Vicente, "Say, The people united will never be defeated," and Don Vicente would say, The people united will never be defeated. They would tell Don Vicente, Raise your left hand when you say it, and he would raise his left hand.

When they had set out on the trip that brought them to the Spanish Embassy, the Uspantan peasants who accompanied the student revolutionaries had no idea where they were going, or what the purpose of the trip actually was. Later, David Stoll interviewed a survivor whose husband had died in the incident. She told him that the journey originated in a wedding party at the Catholic church in Uspantan. Two days after the ceremony, the wedding party moved on. "The señores said they were going to the coast, but they arrived at the capital." Once there, the student revolutionaries proceeded with their plan to occupy the embassy and take hostages, with the unsuspecting Mayans ensnared. Although the cause of the tragedy that ensued is in dispute, David Stoll presents persuasive evidence that a Molotov cocktail brought by the students ignited and set the embassy on fire. At least 39 people, including Vicente Menchu, were killed.

As a result of Stolls research Rigoberta Menchu has been exposed as a Communist agent working for terrorists who were ultimately responsible for the death of her own family. So rigid is Rigobertas party loyalty to the Castroist cause, that after her book was published and she became an international spokesperson for indigenous peoples, she refused to denounce the Sandinista dictatorships genocidal attempt to eliminate its Miskito Indians. She even broke with her own translator, Elisabeth Burgos-Debray, over the issue of the Miskitos (Burgos-Debray, along with other prominent French leftists, had protested the Sandinista attacks.)

Rigobertas response to this exposure of her lies has been, on the one hand, "no comment" and, on the other, to add another liethe denial that she had anything to do with the book that made her famous. But David Stoll listened to two hours of the tapes she made for Burgos-Debray (which provided the text for the book) and has concluded that the narrative they recorded is identical to the (false) version of the facts in the book itself. Of course, Rigoberta did not disclaim authorship of the book when she accepted her Nobel Prize.

The fictional life of Rigoberta Menchu is a piece of Communist propaganda designed to incite hatred of Europeans and Westerners, and the societies they have built, and to organize support for Communist and terrorist organizations at war with the democracies of the West. It has also become the single most influential social treatise read by American college students. Over 15,000 theses have been written on Rigoberta Menchu the world overall accepting her lies as gospel. Rigoberta herself has been the recipient of 14 honorary doctorates at prestigious institutions of higher learning, and the Nobel Prize committee has made Rigoberta an international figure and spokesperson for "social justice and peace."

Almost as remarkable as the hoax itself, and indicative of the enormous cultural power of its perpetrators, is the fact that the revelation of Rigobertas mendacity has changed nothing. The Nobel committee has already refused to take back her prize, the thousands of college courses that make her book a required text for American college students will continue to do so, and the editorial writers of the major press institutions have already defended her falsehoods on the same grounds that supporters of Tawana Brawleys parallel hoax made famous: even if shes lying, shes telling the truth.

That NYT would cast its lot with this shameless grifter is not surprising, nor is the failure to mention the lies that her book told.

Those Nasty Right-Wing Cubans

2007-09-11T21:15:00.000-04:00

I read this piece in the WSJ the other day and meant to comment on it but Babalu pretty much covered it all. I will say this, I came out against the embargo quite publicly in a piece I wrote for a college paper here in Miami. It had started as a pro-embargo editorial but as I worked on it I found flaws in my thinking and I took a radically and unexpected turn. So I warned the parents and braced myself for the onslaught...the onslaught that never came. My fellow College Republicans chided me, my Bay of Pigs vet uncle bugged me and my childhood buddy's dad bombed me with literature but no one reproached me or threatened me. My mom, who worked at the school did not even get nasty comments from co-workers. Perhaps my conservative and anti-Castro activities shielded me from criticism but why didn't I get ripped by people who had no idea that I had once traveled to DC to lobby for continuing the embargo? Maybe we aren't so bad. Maybe we are more tolerant than we are made out to be.

Holding My Nose...

2007-09-08T21:51:00.000-04:00

The hardest thing about being anti-embargo is the company I keep. Christopher Dodd, erstwhile candidate for the Democratic nomination for president and a commie lover from way back, is calling for the end of the embargo. I didn't think there was a doubt where he stood. I'm actually surprised that he isn't calling for a free-trade pact with Fidel.

Previously the Dodd campaign had put out release on Dodd's support for removing restrictions on travel to Cuba. Typical B.S. statement topped off with this winner.

The Island of Cuba is in the throes of a transition to a post-Castro Cuba. A US policy of staying the course leaves us on the sides as the future of Cuba is being written. It is time to engage before it is too late to have a positive influence on the political landscape which is rapidly taking shape there. In a Dodd administration the United States will engage with the Cuban people in support of a peaceful transition to democracy.

"Throes of transition?" What transition? Nothing substantive has changed...nothing. And seriously what is the danger of being "on the sides" while the future of Cuba is written? It is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, what do we as a country lose in not dealing with Cuba during its "throes of transition?" Seriously, what candidate is going to say that it is not willing to "engage the Cuban people in support of a peaceful transition to democracy?" Can't it be said that is also an accurate description of what W. is trying to do for Cuba?

Hat Tip the commie loving Steve Clemons at Washington Note and Havana Note.

Baba-Bull Watch

2007-09-08T07:27:00.000-04:00

Let's face it. I only want to rip BabaluBlog because they are more popular than me. Actually there are other reasons too. First, is the fact that anyone more right-wing than me has to be a knuckle dragging Neanderthal. Then there is their obsessive focus on Cuba. Understandable, I know ,because it is a blog about Cuba, but what I mean is that Cuba comes first...even before the country they know best and bestowed upon them the blessings of liberty that are denied to native Cubans.

I call myself theCardinal because much like Cardinal Richelieu I have divided loyalties. His loyalty was purportedly to the church but ultimately he served his country before his God. My conundrum stems from being an American of Cuban descent. I am certain that the death of Castro will launch me out of my house and somewhere in the middle of Calle Ocho so I can laugh, sing and dance with everyone else. Yet when it comes down to it I am an American first and American interests are my primary concern. And let there be no doubt there is a divergence in what is good for America and what we Cubans in Miami want for Cuba.

Most Cubans still cling to the embargo as if it was holy writ, but let us examine what Cuban-Americans hope to accomplish with it. What they hope for is that this will cause the collapse of the commie regime and that democracy would immediately take its place. That's just plain nuts. Cubans in Miami have been here for 47 years and as it is we barely have the political maturity to run a city or a county. So we expect people who have known nothing else but corruption and communism in all that time will immediately adapt?

A collapse would be catastrophic for the US - a veritable flotilla of boats, rafts, dingies and god knows what would make its way to South Florida. We also don't know how bad order would breakdown without authorities to maintain control.

What I am saying is that even though Castro is more to blame for the crappy Cuban economy than the embargo it is in our interest to improve Cuba's economic performance. It is absurd to think that an island with a population smaller than the state of Florida could possibly pose a geopolitical threat

The Miami Herald Sucks...and So Do Its Readers

2007-09-08T06:44:00.000-04:00

Hit some news sites this morning to see what the top stories were. The much maligned Drudge Report plasters Osama's latest video release above the banner and has a note above that mentioning that the Republican and Bush critic Chuck Hagel is quitting the senate. NYT has their typical "sky is falling as long as a Republican is in the White House" piece. This time the focus is not Iraq but the economy...something they have pretty much ignored for the better part of six years except when gas prices went up.

The Washington papers have a more international focus. The PWaPost tells us what to expect from Gen. Petraeus's report and the Times recounts the testy exchange between W and South Korean Prez Roh Moo-hyun.

Meanwhile LAT and my beloved Herald have local concerns topping their websites. LAT reports that a locally based lender is laying off 12,000. And the Herald has what you ask? What critical story tops its site? The headline literally leads with the following "Dade mom recruited to check out McDonald's."

What is wrong with my hometown paper? No one doubts that the Herald reporters look down upon their Spanish sister paper el Nuevo Herald but even they top off their site with the "historic" Hispanic presidential forum to be held at UM.

As for Herald readers all I can say is that they really aren't interested in the news to begin with. Of the most viewed stories on the site seven are sports related. Five of those deal with the truly awful Dolphins. Of the three remaining pieces one is the aforementioned Micky D Mom Inspector, a story about a tropical storm warning for the Carolinas and finally a piece on gambling in Seminole Indian casinos

theCardinal's Return...and Manu Chao's

2007-09-07T21:13:00.000-04:00

Other than the fact I am incredibly lazy I have no excuse for disappearing for the better part of 8 months. So here I go again easing my way into it. Once again I have been somewhat inspired by the LatinAmericanist to get things going again. My favorite commie troubadour, Manu Chao, has a new album out. Sure his simplistic, antiquated political beliefs are annoying but the man is a musical genius. The new release Radiolina seems to sound like typical Manu Chao but with more of a guitar edge. No, I don't have it yet...waiting for my Amazon delivery.

LA Quick Hits: Calderon's Challenge(s), Mexican Mess, Manny To Go Free (Kind of), Hugo is Nice, Paper War Continues, Evo & ETA & More

2007-01-24T05:58:00.000-05:00

CSM closes out its excellent series on the troubles facing Calderon. The last piece focuses on the income gap in Mex.
Speaking of Mex income Calderon said no gov't official should make more than him. Is that before or after bribes?
Mexican tourism officials are freaked out over the new passport requirements that took affect Tuesday. They should be.
A PRD official from Oaxaca was gunned down.
W mentioned Cuba in the State of the Union last night, Ros-Lehtinen was predictably ecstatic. Somehow Fidel's nephews did provide a quote to the Herald. Meanwhile some lawmakers want to make life easier for Fidel and his posse.
Manuel Noriega will be set "free" Sept. 9 although it appears that he will be extradited to France or Panama where he is wanted for crimes. The Panamanians want him but France is more likely to get him.
US wants good relations with Correa - I doubt he does.
I have no idea what Marcela Sanchez means when she calls Chavez' s 21st century socialism polite but she comes across like a fellow travelling apologist.
A once prominent Chavista turns critic - too little too late.
A pretty decent profile of Chavez's Venezuela in today's NYT. It features the best definition of Chavismo that I've seen thus far "It is a series of arbitrary improvisations from a fellow obeyed by everyone in his circle."
ChiTrib has its own Chavez profile but it hits familiar points.
Only the geniuses at Vigilia Mambisa could make a puny group of Chavez apologists look rational.
World Court says Argentines can block bridges into Uruguay - Uruguay is steamed and Kirchner says that Uruguay has no choice but to talk to them now.
Evo denies ties to ETA - liar!

LA Quick Hits: Evo is Loved, Hugo Beats China, Ecuador Kicks US Out, Lula's Package, Calderon Fights and Fights, Harleys in Havana & More

2007-01-23T05:48:00.000-05:00

One year in and Evo is still popular but divisive. What helps is the increased revenue from his nationalization program and that the economy is still growing. Evo marked the anniversary with a Fidel-esque 4 1/2 hour speech.
The biggest customer in the arms market since 2005? Would you believe Hugo? Venezuela chipped in $4.3 billion to buy weapons and other military hardware (en esp.) while the China Reds ponied up $3.4 billion.
Ecuador made clear that it is booting the US from the base in Manta (en esp.) in 2009, when the pact with US expires. Ecuador also looks to get into the LA arms race. (en esp.)
CSM's excellent series on Calderon continues. Now the discussion focuses on his economic policy particularly the difficulty of dealing with monopolies. Ironically FT has a story on Calderon's planned assault on monopolies.
Lula unveiled his growth package and it was bigger than expected.
Calderon unveiled an 8-point plan to fight the drug war. He plans to rely more on local police in the future.
Speaking of the police in Mex another cop was killed in Monterrey and...
...police in Tijuana are using slingshots, while they wait for their guns back.
Miami (and Hugo) has given us a new pressure group Independent Venezuelan-America Citizens. They seem to be following the CANF model except that they will try to reach out to middle America by speaking English.
Danny sliced his salary and those of his cabinet. (en esp.)
Having a Harley in Cuba isn't easy.

LA Quick Hits: Hugo Talks (and Talks and Talks), Nutty Correa, Lula's Plan, Evo is Stuck, Monterrey, Cuba Libre! and More

2007-01-22T05:48:00.000-05:00

Hugo's babfest, Alo Presidente, was back on the air. Hugo told US to "go to hell," spoke of Brazilian babes in string bikinis, the hanging of Saddam, a plan to jack up taxes, raise the famously low price of Venezuelan gasoline and his plan to not pay market value for the nationalization of CANTV (en esp.) - the telecom company.
FT has a round up of LA. Among the issues explored: Hugo's power grab and insane fiscal policy, Correa's even nuttier fiscal plans and the promising start of Calderon.
Lula is set to unveil a growth package for Brazil. Among the features of Lula's plan: tax breaks, increased public spending on infrastructure along with other cuts in spending.
Mercosur tabled plans of expansion, despite Hugo's enthusiasm for it.
CSM begins a very promising series on Calderon's crackdown.
Calderon's people insisted that they will carry on with the drug war and the AG insisted that extradition of drug traffickers had nothing to do with pressure from US.
Bolivia's constitutional assembly is stuck in the mud and the politics of that country are a mess. Divisions abound and Evo has had to adjust.
5 killed by FARC bomb.
11 Iraqis bound for US were arrested in Mexico.
Residents of Monterrey are accused of being cheap by fellow Mex. Is it an accident that Monterrey is the most business friendly and entrepreneurial major city in Mex?
Monterrey is finishing off its own "River Walk."
Who wants a free Cuba? No one but US.

Delayed Quick Hits

2007-01-19T05:54:00.000-05:00

Due to unforseen circumstances I will not be able to post until the early evening. I apologize for the delay.